Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Atul Vohra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2269 of 2025
Decided On : 16-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Ajay Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr HC Vinod Kumar, No. 959, IO, PS New Shimla, HP.

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 indicating repetition risk despite no Section 37 rigours.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 27, 29, 35, 54 - Bail application - Recovery of intermediate quantity (45.350 grams) of heroin, weighing machine, burnt currency note, substantial cash from house where petitioner present as owner with co-accused - Prima facie conscious possession as exercise of control over contraband - Burden on accused to disprove under Sections 35 and 54 - Grounds of arrest need not be separately supplied if caught red-handed - Rigours of Section 37 inapplicable yet bail denied considering nature of offence, prima facie evidence, antecedents with prior similar FIRs indicating repetition risk, witness threat apprehension, drug menace to society. (Paras 10-12, 16, 21-28)

(B) Bail - Principles - Grant requires judicious consideration of accusation nature, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, repetition likelihood, witness tampering risk, societal interests - Parity applicable only if identical roles/situations; rejected where co-accused casual visitor unlike house owner - Individual liberty restricted by social order. (Paras 8-9, 17-20)

(C) Criminal antecedents - Relevant in bail assessment; prior NDPS involvement heightens refusal grounds due to repetition threat and societal harm. (Paras 23-28)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail post-arrest in case for possession/sale of heroin based on secret information leading to house search yielding contraband, cash, weighing machine. Petitioner house owner present with co-accused (later bailed as visitor). Prior FIRs including similar offence pending. Blood analysis added consumption charge.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; continued custody warranted due to prima facie involvement, possession, antecedents.

Issues: Conscious possession proof; arrest grounds communication; parity with co-accused; Section 37 applicability; bail entitlement despite intermediate quantity and antecedents.

Ratio Decidendi: Prima facie possession/control over contraband in own house shifts burden to accused; parity demands similar roles rejected here; NDPS bail cautious even sans Section 37 due to societal drug peril, prior offences signalling repetition risk.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. ndps bail petition; heroin recovery from petitioner's house. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. bail parameters balance liberty, offence gravity, antecedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. house occupancy implies conscious ndps possession; accused bears burden. (Para 10 , 11)
4. red-handed arrest; no separate grounds communication required. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. bail parity demands identical accused roles. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. intermediate ndps quantity; bail not as matter of right. (Para 21 , 22)
7. antecedents indicate repetition risk; deny ndps bail. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. petition dismissed; observations limited to bail disposal. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 19 of 2025, dated 8.7.2025, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and commands good respect in the society. He was arrested on 8.7.2025 in FIR No. 19 of 2025 dated 8.7.2025. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any crime. There is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The co-accused was released on bail by this Court on 29.7.2025. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 08.07.2025. The police received a secret information at 04:45 pm that Atul Vohra and his friend were selling heroin from their house, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by a search of their house. The information was credible. It was reduced to writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated Anil Kaundal and went to the house where Mahesh Thakur and the petitioner, Atul Vohra, were present. The police searched the house and recovered the burnt currency note of Rs. 10/- kept on the mattress, a pouch containing 45.350 grams of heroin, a bundle of currency notes worth Rs. 44,000/-, and a weighing machine. The police arrested the petitioner and Mahesh Thakur. FIR Nos. 148 of 202 (sic), dated 17.7.2025 and FIR No. 10 of 2024, dated 17.4.2024 and FIR No. 163 of 2024, dated 23.9.2024, are pending against the petitioner. The result of the analysis shows that the exhibit was a sample of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). The blood sample of the petitioner and co-accused contained Dextromethorphan, Levorphanol, Codeine and Morphine. Hence, Section 27 of the NDPS Act was added. The charge sheet was filed before the Court, and the matter was listed before the learned Additional Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, on 23.9.2025. The petitioner would threaten the witnesses and indulge in the commission of similar offences if released on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner. There is no evidence that the petitioner was residing alone in the house, and his exclusive possession has not been proved. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the house is less than a commercial quantity. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case, and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The grounds of the arrest were not supplied to him. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additiona