IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kunal Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2362 of 2024
Decided on : 03-01-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 6.21 grams of heroin - Co-accused released on bail - Petitioner in judicial custody since 26.01.2024 - Principle of parity invoked - Rigours of Section 37 not applicable due to small quantity - Previous FIRs against petitioner indicate criminal antecedents - Court emphasized that mere possession does not equate to entitlement for bail based on parity - Dismissed bail application. (Paras 1, 9, 13, 15)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The Supreme Court has laid down that the fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during investigation and trial, and conditions must be reasonable and related to this objective. (Paras 7, 12)
(C) Criminal Antecedents - The court must consider the criminal history of the accused when deciding on bail, especially if there is a likelihood of re-offending. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing 6.21 grams of heroin while traveling on a bus. The co-accused was released on bail, but the petitioner has prior FIRs against him under the ND&PS Act.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was found in actual possession of heroin, and his criminal history indicates a likelihood of re-offending, thus not entitled to bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on the principle of parity and the implications of his criminal antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that possession of narcotics and prior criminal history are significant factors against granting bail, emphasizing that parity must consider the role of the accused.
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 in FIR No. 05 of 2024, dated 26.01.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ND&PS Act) registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police checked the bus bearing registration No. CH-01GA-8195. The petitioner and the co-accused were found occupying seats No. 35 and 34, respectively. The petitioner had acarry bag, and police found 6.21 grams of heroin while checking it. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.01.2024. The co- accused has been released on bail. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is just above the small quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, bearing Cr.MP No. 1101 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.07.2024. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He 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. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party received a secret information on 26.01.2024 regarding the transportation of heroin by Kunal and Prakash, who were travelling in the bus bearing registration No. CH-01GA-8145. The police completed the formalities and intercepted the bus at 6:50 PM. The police checked the passengers in the presence of the driver and the conductor. The petitioner was occupying seat No. 34 and had a carry bag with him. Prakash Chand was occupying seat No. 35. The police checked the petitioner’s carry bag and found 6.21 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and Prakash Chand. The heroin was sent to SFSL, and the result of the analysis confirmed it to be heroin. FIR No. 191 of 2019 dated 10.09.2019 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act and FIR No. 221 of 2022 dated 30.10.2022 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of ND&PS Act are registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sadar, Solan. The challan has been filed before the Court and is listed before learned Additional Sessions Judge Solan on 02.01.2025 for consideration on charge.
3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Co-accused Prakash Chand has already been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a carry bag containing heroin. The co-accused was merely sitting on seat No. 35, which is located adjacent to seat No. 34. There is no parity between the petitioner and the co- accused. 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 under: -
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be r
The court emphasized that possession of narcotics and prior criminal history are critical factors against granting bail, and the principle of parity must consider the role of the accused.
Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate heroin quantity due to prima facie conscious possession in own house, rejection of parity over differing co-accused roles, and criminal antecedents indicati....
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....
Vehicle occupants in conscious possession of intermediate heroin quantity recovered therein; bail denied despite no Section 37 rigours, considering drug menace, criminal antecedents, trafficking indi....
Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate contraband quantity due to accused's criminal antecedents, prior similar offences, repetition risk, and societal drug menace, rejecting parity with co-accus....
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 denied in NDPS case with intermediate quantity due to criminal antecedents under NDPS, risk of repetition, and societal drug menace, emphasizing balanced consideration of liberty against public ....
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to criminal antecedents, prior bail violation via similar offence, and prima facie conscious possession from presence at recovery site.
Prolonged pre-trial detention may warrant bail despite serious accusations; rights to speedy trial and personal liberty are paramount.
The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.
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.