Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Gopal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 435 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of charas, asserting innocence and lack of criminal antecedents - Investigation complete, no recovery from petitioner - Opposed by State citing public safety concerns - Court emphasized the need to balance pre-trial detention and the right to bail, noting possession was below commercial quantity and no evidence of prior offenses. (Paras 1, 5, 11, 13, 16)
(B) Bail Parameters - Court must consider nature of accusation, gravity of offense, and potential for witness tampering when deciding bail - Emphasis on not denying bail as punishment before trial, and that conditions can mitigate concerns of witness intimidation. (Paras 7, 14, 18)
(C) Conditions of Bail - Petitioner ordered to comply with several conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness intimidation. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner arrested for allegedly selling charas; claims false implication with no criminal history, and investigation complete with no recovery from him. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
Petitioner granted bail due to lack of substantial evidence against him and the nature of the offense. (Paras 12, 16)
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the allegations and the quantity of drugs involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pre-trial detention is not justified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially when the evidence does not support the prosecution's claims.
Result: Petition allowed, bail granted under conditions.
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. 08 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in the society. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 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 party was on patrolling duty on 24.01.2025. ASI-Anil Kumar received secret information at 4:10 pm that the petitioner was selling charas in his village, and in the case of his search, a huge quantity of charas could be recovered. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated independent witnesses and proceeded towards the village. They found the petitioner coming towards them with a bag. The petitioner threw the bag and ran away. The police checked the bag in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered 443.230 grams of charas. The police seized the charas. The petitioner was arrested on 31.01.2025. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The charas was sent to FSL, Junga and confirmed to be charas. The challan has been prepared and is being checked by the learned APP; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. He was not apprehended on the spot. The quantity stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a huge quantity of charas, which could not have been meant for self-consumption. The offences involving narcotics are on the increase and should not be viewed lightly. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence, in case of his release on bail, therefore, 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
The court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
The court established that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply for intermediate quantities, allowing bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and reasonable conditions to ....
The court established that bail should not be denied indefinitely, emphasizing reasonable conditions to ensure justice and the accused's presence during trial.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply as the quantity of heroin is less than commercial, allowing bail with conditions.
The court emphasized that the parameters for granting bail include the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and the accused's societal ties, allowing bail when evidence is insufficient.
The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the petitioner as the quantity of heroin is intermediate, allowing for bail under reasonable conditions.
The court established that the parameters for granting bail must ensure the accused's presence during trial, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions and the concept of conscious possession in ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
