Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sundari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 455 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; investigation complete and no fruitful purpose in further detention - Special considerations for bail due to the petitioner's responsibilities towards her ill husband - Parameters for bail considered from Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 1, 7, 9, 10, 15)
(B) Bail - Conditions - Discretion of the court to impose reasonable conditions; prior criminal antecedents considered but not determinative in light of special circumstances - Apprehensions about the petitioner fleeing or tampering with witnesses not substantiated. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing heroin found in her son's room. She claims innocence and responsibility for her husband’s care, who is severely ill.
Findings of Court:
The court granted bail, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to care for her husband and the lack of evidence to support claims of her potential to abscond or intimidate witnesses.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering her family obligations and previous criminal record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that special circumstances, such as the petitioner's responsibility for her ill husband, justified granting bail despite previous criminal antecedents.
Result: Petition allowed; bail granted with 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 FIR No. 24 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police recovered 08 grams of heroin from the petitioner’s house. The rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner’s husband is suffering from heart ailment and diabetes. The petitioner is responsible for looking after him. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner 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 were on patrolling duty on 29.1.2025. They received a secret information at 4.00 PM that the petitioner and her son were selling heroin, and in case of search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the supervisory officer. The police associated two independent witnesses and reached the petitioner’s house. The petitioner, her husband and her son were found present. The petitioner’s husband disclosed that his toes were amputated due to diabetes, and he was unable to move. He was under treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and Sai Hospital, Paonta Sahib. One purse containing Rs.63,000/- and 08 grams of heroin was found kept beneath the mattress in the room of the petitioner’s son. The police also conducted a personal search of the petitioner and her son, but no contraband was found. The police arrested the petitioner and her son. The recovered substance was confirmed to be heroin in the report of SFSL. FIR No. 154 of 2022, dated 15.7.2022, was also registered against the petitioner for possessing 2.81 grams of heroin. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not found in possession of any contraband and the heroin was recovered from the room occupied by the petitioner’s son. The petitioner’s husband is suffering from diabetes and heart blockage. There is no one to look after him. The petitioner and her son have been arrested and put behind the bars; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier. She would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of her 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as follows: -
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and e
Bail may be granted based on special circumstances, such as the accused's family obligations, despite prior criminal history.
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 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 ....
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.
In NDPS cases with intermediate narcotic quantity, Section 37 rigours inapplicable; regular bail granted on parity with co-accused, trial delay, and prolonged detention, upholding bail as rule absent....
Bail for accused with prior offenses requires careful scrutiny; strong evidence existing against the petitioner precludes bail despite claimed trial delays.
Female petitioner granted bail in NDPS case with intermediate contraband quantity from shared room despite possession presumption, due to special gender consideration, no antecedents, and charge-shee....
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....
The court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
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.
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
