Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kapil Dev - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 42 of 2025
Decided On : 21-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of heroin based solely on co-accused’s statements, with no recovery from him - Previous FIRs against petitioner for similar offences noted - Court emphasized the seriousness of drug-related crimes and that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right despite the quantity being intermediate - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 2, 22)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail in serious criminal offences - The court must consider the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, criminal antecedents, and the possibility of tampering with evidence - The release of accused in drug-related cases may send a negative signal to society. (Paras 7, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under NDPS Act for alleged involvement in drug trafficking, based on statements from co-accused and evidence of financial transactions. The petitioner claimed innocence and cited health issues as grounds for bail. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found substantial evidence linking the petitioner to drug trafficking, including witness statements and financial transactions, and emphasized the societal impact of drug abuse. (Paras 11, 22)
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of co-accused statements, the weight of circumstantial evidence, and the implications of the petitioner’s criminal history on bail eligibility. (Paras 4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seriousness of drug offences, combined with the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the evidence, justified the denial of bail, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own facts. (Paras 19, 23)
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. 42 of 2024, dated 12.03.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan. As per the prosecution, 9.29 grams of heroin was found in the possession of Abhishek and Rajat. The petitioner and his son Dishant Garg were arrayed as accused at their instance. The petitioner was involved in FIR No.5 of 2024 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Parwanoo but there was no evidence against him in the said case also. No recovery was effected from the petitioner in the present case and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely based on the statement made by the co-accused. The petitioner is suffering from Diabetes. The petitioner had filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr.MPM No.1139 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on 5.9.2024. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Chandigarh and there is no likelihood of his absconding; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party received a secret information on 12.3.2024 at 2:04 am that two people were riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-98-1355. They were transporting huge quantities of heroin, which could be recovered by their search. The information was reduced to writing, and it was sent to the Supervisory Officer. Two independent witnesses were associated, and the motorcycle was intercepted at 2:40 am. The motorcycle riders revealed their names as Abhishek and Rajat Sharma. The police searched their motorcycle and recovered 9.29 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the riders. They disclosed that they had purchased 9.5 grams of heroin from Dishant Garg and present petitioner Kapil Dev on 11.3.2024 for Rs. 28,000/-. Rs. 26,000/- were paid in cash and Rs. 2,000/- were paid by UPI. The heroin was sent to FSL and was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine. The mobile phone was sent to FSL, and the conversation was found with the mobile number registered in the name of Dishant Garg. Abhishek identified the present petitioner, Kapil Dev, who was arrested. Dishant Garg was also arrested subsequently. Police recorded the statement of Anil Chaudhary, who disclosed that the petitioner and Dishant were running a big business of heroin from their hotel. Huge money transactions were found between Rajat Sharma and Dishant Garg. FIR No. 05 of 2024 has been registered against Kapil Dev and Dishant Garg at Police Station Parwanoo for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. FIR No. 177 of 2021, FIR No. 25 of 2023 and FIR No. 5 of 2024 are also registered against petitioner-Kapil Dev. Three witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed for recording the prosecution’s evidence on 10.4.2025. The petitioner is a drug peddler and is spoiling the future of the young generation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Ms Swati Sharma and Mr Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Ms Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered in the present case is an intermediate quantity. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence. Similarly, the financial transactions cannot amount to incriminating material against the petitioner.
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal history, and potential societal impact, with no automatic entitlement based on the quantity of drug....
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-offendin....
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the accused's criminal history and the nature of the offence, with no entitlement to bail as a matter of right.
The presence of criminal antecedents significantly influences bail decisions, emphasizing the need to protect society from habitual offenders.
The presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that release could pose a threat to society.
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
In NDPS cases with intermediate quantity, bail denied considering criminal antecedents, offence repetition risk, and societal drug menace, even absent Section 37 rigours; arrest valid if red-handed; ....
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.
The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.
Bail denied in NDPS case to accused with multiple prior offences and absconding history, prioritizing criminal antecedents, repetition risk, trial presence security, and societal protection from drug....
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
