Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rajesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 458 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 and 29 - Pre-arrest bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with FIR for possession of charas - The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving economic offences and narcotics - The petitioner was named by co-accused and had absconded, necessitating custodial interrogation - The court found that the quantity of narcotics recovered was significant, justifying the denial of bail. (Paras 1, 7, 14, 18)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of course and must consider the gravity of the accusation and the need for custodial interrogation. (Paras 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated in a case involving the recovery of 4.36 kgs of charas from a vehicle. The police had evidence linking him to the crime through co-accused statements and WhatsApp communications. The petitioner had previously been acquitted in a similar case. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail due to the serious nature of the accusations, the quantity of narcotics involved, and the need for custodial interrogation. (Paras 18)
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the necessity of custodial interrogation in light of the evidence against the petitioner. (Paras 11, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the investigation may be hampered by such a grant. The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation in serious cases involving narcotics. (Paras 7, 10, 18)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner apprehends his arrest in FIR No. 270/2024, dated 12.12.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). As per the prosecution, the police had recovered 4.36 kgs of charas from a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168. The petitioner's name was added per the statement made by the co-accused. The statement made by the co-accused is not legally admissible. The Court had released accused-Bunty Kumar on bail. FIR No. 83 of 2016 dated 08.05.2016 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act in Police Station Joginder Nagar. However, the petitioner was acquitted by learned Special Judge, Sarkaghat on 18.05.2022. 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 12.12.2024 when they received the information that Charas was being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to a supervisory officer. The police signalled the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168 to stop; however, the driver sped away the vehicle towards Talwara. The vehicle was stopped at a lonely place and the occupants of the vehicle ran away from the spot. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 4.36 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested Raj Kumar, who revealed on inquiry that he was told by Shyam Lal to take the vehicle towards Jawali. Two persons signalled him to stop the vehicle but he sped away the vehicle at the instance of Shyam Lal. Subsequently, he and Shyam Lal ran away after stopping the vehicle at a lonely place. Shyam Lal accompanied him who was to deliver the charas to Banty Kumar at the instance of present petitioner Raj Kumar alias Raju. The police arrested the petitioner who admitted that he used to purchase charas from Raj Kumar alias Raju. The police searched various places to apprehend the petitioner but did not succeed in arresting him. The petitioner had made WhatsApp audio and video calls to Bunty. He had also contacted Raj Kumar. The petitioner is to be interrogated; hence the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. This Court has already released Bunty Kumar on bail. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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 various efforts were made to trace to the petitioner. The petitioner had made calls to Raj Kumar and Bunty. He was named by co-accused. The police had recovered 4.36 kgs of charas, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner is to be interrogated to determine the source and destination of the charas. Thus, 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 i
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases involving narcotics, where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially in serious offences like narcotics, where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for serious offences.
Pre-arrest bail under the NDPS Act is extraordinary and should be granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail in narcotics cases should be granted sparingly, balancing individual rights with public interest and the necessity of effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, especially in cases involving economic offences and where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially when custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving economic offences, where custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigatio....
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
