Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Subham Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1621 of 2025
Decided On :09-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail denied in NDPS case for intermediate contraband quantity due to prior case suppression, criminal antecedents, red-handed recovery, and repetition risk, emphasizing societal protection over liberty.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Bail application - Recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband (12 grams heroin) from vehicle near handbrake - Vehicle sped away on seeing police patrol, lacked rear number plate, intercepted after chase - Search in presence of two independent witnesses - Prior FIR under NDPS pending at evidence stage, not disclosed in petition - Suppression of material fact disentitles petitioner to favourable consideration - No need to inform grounds of arrest when caught red-handed - No requirement to associate witnesses from particular location - Bail not matter of right despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable - Release sends negative signal to society amid drug menace - Criminal antecedents indicate likelihood of repetition - Bail denied. (Paras 2, 3, 10-17, 19-25)

(B) Bail - Principles - Nature of charge, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, repetition risk, witness tampering apprehension, justice obstruction, societal interests to be weighed - Individual liberty restricted by social balance - Mechanical grant impermissible; reasoned application of mind essential. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail alleging false implication, illegal arrest sans grounds communication, improbable prosecution story, lack of witnesses from interception site. Prosecution: Suspicious vehicle chase, contraband seizure confirmed as heroin by FSL, prior NDPS case pending with charge-sheet filed.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; observations limited to bail disposal, no bearing on merits.

Issues: Legality of arrest procedure; search witness compliance; effect of non-disclosure and prior involvement; bail entitlement in NDPS context.

Ratio Decidendi: Prima facie case established; suppression of prior case, antecedents justify denial to avert repetition risk and societal harm; bail discretion exercised judiciously per precedents.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner apprehended with 12g heroin during chase. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner alleges illegal arrest; state cites antecedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail decided per supreme court judicious principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. no grounds needed for red-handed arrest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. police suspicion valid; witnesses independent. (Para 14 , 15)
6. ndps bail cautious due to drug menace. (Para 16 , 17)
7. concealing prior firs disentitles bail. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. antecedents justify denying bail. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
9. bail petition dismissed; observations limited. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 43 of 2025 dated 09.03.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS’) at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 09.03.2025. A vehicle sped away towards Charan Khad at 1:50 p.m. after seeing the police. The police became suspicious, followed the vehicle, and intercepted it near Shukla Nursing Home. The driver identified himself as Shubham Chaudhary (present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle in the presence of witnesses Sonu Kumar , Rajidner Singh and ASI Ramesh Kumar, and recovered a polythene packet kept near the handbrake. These allegations are false. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. His custody is not required. He was not informed about the grounds of arrest. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 09.03.2025. A vehicle crossed the police vehicle at Charanpul. The driver sped his vehicle after seeing the police vehicle. The police became suspicious. The vehicle did not have a number plate on its rear side. The police followed the vehicle and intercepted it at a distance of 200 meters from Shukla Nursing Home. Sonu Kumar and Rajinder Singh were associated as independent witnesses. The driver identified himself as Shubham Chaudhary (present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle and found a transparent polythene packet containing beige and white granulated powder. The police checked it, found it to be heroin. It was weighed and its weight was found to be twelve grams. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to SFSL, Junga, and, as per the report of analysis, it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). F.I.R. No. 100 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 is pending against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter was listed for 10.09.2025 for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Arun Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Arun Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police failed to associate any independent witness from Shukla Nursing Home. The prosecution’s version is inherently improbable. The petitioner’s arrest is illegal because the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that an FIR was earlier registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, which shows that the petitioner has crim