IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Paras Justa - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.250 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner sought bail after being in custody since 05.04.2024, accused of involvement in drug-related offenses without direct evidence linking him to the contraband - No recovery made from the petitioner, and allegations based on call details and bank transactions - Rigors of Section 37 not applicable due to the nature of the quantity involved - Court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, particularly when the continued detention lacks sufficient grounds. (Paras 6, 12, 19)
(B) Personal Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution - The court reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon personal liberty and that bail should not be denied as a punitive measure. (Paras 8, 10, 19)
(C) Principle of Parity - The court noted that co-accused had been granted bail under similar circumstances, thus supporting the petitioner's claim for bail. (Paras 14, 15)
(D) Conditions for Bail - The court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the interests of justice while granting bail. (Paras 20)
JUDGMENT :
(Ranjan Sharma, J.)
Bail petitioner [Paras Justa], being in custody 05.04.2024, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as BNSS] origination from FIR No.21 of 2024, dated 14.2.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [in short the NDPS Act] registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla,Himachal Pradesh.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case as set by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel is that petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the accusation and the petitioner is a young man belonging to a respectable family. It is averred that bail petitioner has been arrested merely on the basis of alleged call details and bank transactions between him and the main accused [Parikshit Dhani].
2(i). It is averred that no recovery of contraband was made from the petitioner(s) whereas, the alleged recovery was made from Parikshit Dhani weighing 12.06 grams but after complying with the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the recovered contraband came out to be 8.58 grams [as per page 13 of paper book in instant case], which is an Intermediate Quantity.
2(ii). Bail petitioner has undertaken that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, with the further undertaking that he shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. It is averred that the bail petitioner has filed an application for bail before this Court i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1159 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 26.07.2024, Annexure P-1. Thereafter, petitioner filed bail application before Learned Special Judge Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, H.P. which was also dismissed on 21.01.2025, Annexure P-3. It is averred that nothing is to be recovered from bail petitioner by the Investigating Agency. It is averred that rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted and moreover when four other co-accused from whom no recovery was made have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.1.2025 by this Court and orders dated 21.01.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge, [as stated in Para 10 of the bail petition]. In this background, petitioner has filed the instant application for bail.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 13.02.2025, State Authorities have filed Status Report dated 28.02.2025.
3(i). Perusal of the Status Report indicates that on 14.2.2024, while police party was on patrolling duty at about 2:30 PM, a vehicle bearing No.HP-63C-5463 reached near Ekant Vatika, on the bye-pass, one person [Prikshit Dhani] on noticing the police became perplexed and on seeing the police party, accused [Prikshit Dhani] took out the polyethene from his pocket and threw it away, which was taken into custody by police and the same was found to be containing 28 bundles (pudia), wrapped in foil paper which on weighing, turned out to be 12.06 Grams of Chitta/Heroin. Pursuant to this recovery, main accused [Prikshit Dhani] was arrested on 14.02.2024.
3(ii). Pursuant to registration of FIR, the police started investigation and recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Status Report reveals that during investigation, the main accused [Prikshit Dhani], disclosed that his friend Paras Justa and others who were with him residing in Chandigarh and resorted to sale and purchase of Chitta/Heroin.
3(iii). Status Report further indicates that CDRs and bank transactions of petitioner [Paras Justa] resorted to 307 calls and there were bank transactions amounting to Rs.3,97,206/- between the bail petitioner [Paras Justa] and main accused [Prikshit Dhani] from October, 2023 to February, 2024.
3(iv). Status Report indicates that petitioner has joined investigation and now the Challan-Final Police Report has been presented before jurisdictional Court and 31 witnesses are to be examined, out o
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged detention without trial infringes personal liberty under Article 21.
Bail is a rule, and denial of bail without sufficient grounds infringes personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail can be granted even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act when prolonged incarceration occurs without trial, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty and speedy trial.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without substantial evidence, especially in cases of prolonged detention without trial.
Prolonged detention without trial undermines personal liberty; bail is favored, especially when evidence against the accused is weak and trial delays are significant.
Bail is granted when no prima facie case exists against the accused, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21, especially during prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, necessitating the grant of bail even under stringent provisions like the NDPS Act if no reasonable groun....
Prolonged pre-trial incarceration may justify bail under NDPS Act when there is no substantial evidence against the accused and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is violated.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged detention without trial violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.