Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Prikshit Dhani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.251 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra & Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr.Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General.

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.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail petition - Petitioner, arrested for possession of 12.06 grams of heroin, claimed false implication and lack of evidence - Previous bail applications dismissed; however, four co-accused granted bail - Court emphasized the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception - Detention for prolonged periods without trial violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - CDRs and BTRs do not justify continued incarceration post-investigation - Petitioner has no prior criminal record and has undertaken to comply with bail conditions. (Paras 6, 7, 11, 18, 19)

JUDGMENT :

(Ranjan Sharma, J.)

Bail petitioner [Prikshit Dhani], 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.

2(i). It is averred that though the alleged recovery was made from petitioner - Prikshit Dhani, weighing 12.06 grams, 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 which was dismissed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge-II), Shimla on 13.3.2024 [Annexure P-1]; and the second bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 577 of 2024 was dismissed on 27.3.2024 [Annexure P-2] and the third bail petition was dismissed on 21.1.2025 [Annexure P-3]. It is averred that rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted and once four other co-accused 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 9 of bail petition], therefore, in this background, the petitioner may be enlarged on 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 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, the petitioner [Prikshit Dhani], on noticing the police became perplexed and threw a polythene, which was taken into custody by police, which 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, the petitioner [Prikshit Dhani] was arrested on 14.02.2024.

3(ii). Status Report further indicates that CDRs and Bank Transaction Records [BTR’s] of petitioner [Prikshit Dhani] reveal that he has made calls with other co-accused and monetary transaction of about Rs.9,00,000/- [Rupees Nine Lacs] between the bail petitioner and other co-accused from October, 2023 to February, 2024.

3(iii). 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 of which 6 PWs have been examined and the matter is fixed for Prosecution Evidence on 29.03.2025.

4. Heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, and Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State.

MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL:

5. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online S