Bail for accused with prior offenses requires careful scrutiny; strong evidence existing against the petitioner precludes bail despite claimed trial delays.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered vide FIR No. 10 of 2024, dated 18.01.2024, at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. As perthe prosecution, the police recovered 120 grams of Heroin from the petitioner. He has been in judicial custody for almost one year. The matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 9^th and 10^th January 2025 for recording prosecution evidence, however, few witnesses have been examined to date. The petitioner was falsely implicated and he has nothing to do with the commission of crime. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon him.Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 18.01.2024, when the Inspector /SHO received information that the accused was transporting a huge quantity of heroin. The police completed codal formalities, intercepted the vehicle and searched it in the presence of the independent witnesses. He recovered two polythene pouches containing 120 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to SFSL for analysis. The petitioner was supplying heroin to the school and college going students. Four F.I.R. under the NDPS Act and six FIRs under various Sections of IPC have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner can indulge in similar offences in case of his release on bail. Challan was filed before the Court on 06.03.2024. Ten witnesses out of twenty-four have been examined and the matter is now listed on 09.01.2025. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. There is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that that the petitioner is a supplier of heroin, which is affecting the younger generation adversely. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of he is released on bail. Hence, 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 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