Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Kamlesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 79 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

The court ruled that bail is not a matter of right, especially for drug-related offences, and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's criminal antecedents and potential for re-offending.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested for possession of 7.500 grams of heroin, claims innocence and lack of criminal history; however, the status report indicates prior involvement in drug-related offences. The court emphasized that the parameters for granting bail require consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal antecedents, and likelihood of re-offending. The court found that the petitioner is likely to commit similar offences if released, and the principle of parity with a co-accused is not applicable due to differing roles. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 20)

(B) Bail - The court reiterated that bail is not a matter of right, especially in drug cases, and emphasized the need for careful consideration of the specific facts of each case. (Paras 11, 18)

(C) Criminal Antecedents - The presence of prior FIRs against the petitioner was a significant factor in denying bail, highlighting the court's concern over public safety and the implications of drug-related crimes. (Paras 12, 20)

(D)

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 195 of 2024, dated 04.11.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered with the Police station West Boileauganj, Shimla. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner does not have any criminal history, and he is not likely to commit the offence in case of his release on bail. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police stopped a bus bearing registration No. HP-64A-3814 for checking on 04.11.2024. The petitioner was occupying seat No.30, and Jitender Kumar was occupying seat No.31. The petitioner had concealed a plastic bag, which was checked. It was found to be containing 7.500 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and Jitender Kumar. The petitioner revealed on inquiry that the heroin was purchased from Deepak for Rs.8,000/-. The heroin was sent to FSL and was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine. FIR No.79/2024 dated 10.05.2024 has also been registered against the petitioner in police station Boileauganj for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, which is pending before the Court. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail; hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Co-accused Jitender Kumar has already been released on bail by learned Special Judge-I, Shimla. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is a drug peddler and can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: -

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatter