Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences and where custodial interrogation is necessary.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.06/2024 dated 05.06.2024, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB), District Kullu, H.P. As per the prosecution case, the police party went to village Bhatakral and found opium plants growing on Khasra No. 274 measuring 12 Biswas in Muhal Karal, owned by the petitioner. The land was given to Nirat Ram in the family arrangement and did not belongto the petitioner. The police seized opium plants and sent them to FSL for analysis. The petitioner is not directly involved in the cultivation of opium. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. A perusal of the FIR shows that the police party found 1800 opium plants in Khasra No.274 measuring 12 Biswas situated at Muhal Karal owned by petitioner Ram Singh.

3. I have heard Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The land is jointly owned by various co-sharers and the petitioner is not the sole owner. As per the prosecution case, the land was given to Nirat Ram in a family arrangement. The petitioner has nothing to do with the cultivation of opium poppy plants. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose, hence, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had cultivated 1800 opium poppy plants which is a huge number. A perusal of the order passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu shows that the land was given to Nirat Ram but was in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is to be interrogated about the destination of the opium planted by him, 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. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 :(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other-purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are consideredto decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

8. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that economic offences are to be treated differently from other offences. It was observed:

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 Cr