Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Gopal Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 190 of 2025
Decided On : 31-01-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 - Pre-arrest bail application - Petitioner alleged to be involved in sale and purchase of charas, with no recovery from him - Police received secret information and found charas weighing 443.230 grams in a bag thrown by petitioner - Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly, particularly in serious cases involving narcotics - The petitioner’s claim of false implication was not substantiated, and the need for custodial interrogation was highlighted. (Paras 1, 4, 14, 19)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court must balance individual rights against public interest and the need for a fair investigation - The power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should be exercised cautiously, especially in serious offences. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR for possession of charas, asserting false implication and lack of evidence against him. The police reported finding charas in a bag thrown by the petitioner while fleeing. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s involvement was prima facie established, and the need for custodial interrogation justified the denial of pre-arrest bail. (Paras 11, 19)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the police's actions and the necessity of custodial interrogation in the context of the narcotics offence. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the extraordinary nature of anticipatory bail requires careful consideration of the gravity of the accusation and the potential impact on the investigation, particularly in narcotics cases. (Paras 7, 9, 19)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 08 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (ND&PS Act), registered at the Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falselyimplicated. He is not involved in the commission of the offence. The allegations against the petitioner are false. No recovery was effected from the petitioner and there is no witness to the recovery of the charas. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Gram Panchayat Lingzar. He has deep roots in the society and there is no possibility of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by 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 24.01.2025 when they received secret information at about 4.10 PM at Nakoda bridge that Gopal Singh (present petitioner) was involved in the sale and purchase of charas. The police reduced the information into writing and kept it with themselves due to insufficient number of police officials. The police proceeded towards the petitioner’s village. The petitioner was found coming from the village towards the police party carrying a micron bag with him. He returned after seeing the police and started running away. The police followed him. The petitioner threw the bag and absconded. The police could not catch hold of him. The police checked the bag in the presence of independent witnesses and found charas weighing 443.230 grams. The police seized the charas and conducted the investigation. The inventory of the charas was prepared, which was certified by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal. The charas was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for chemical examination. The petitioner has absconded and could not be apprehended despite best efforts. The petitioner is to be interrogated to know the source of the charas. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no eye witness to the incident. The police reduced the secret information to writing but chose not to send it to the superior officer, which is a violation of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He would join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahil Firoz Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Appeal No. 4905 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 in support of his submissions.
5. Mr Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that two independent witnesses were associated. The petitioner is to be interrogated by the police to determine the source of the charas. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.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 vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:
“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but 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
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be denied in serious offenses when sufficient evidence warrants custodial interrogation.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially in serious offences like narcotics, 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.
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
Bail applications must disclose prior criminal history, with courts assessing the risk of re-offending and societal safety when considering bail requests.
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change in circumstances and Section 37 twin conditions satisfaction; prolonged incarceration or recovery suspicions alone insufficient without such ....
The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in narcotics cases where custodial interrogation is necessary.
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
