Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Nanak Dass - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No.2270 of 2025
Decided On : 14-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Piyush Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General

Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21 & 29 - Bail application in case involving recovery of 6.02 grams heroin (intermediate quantity, slightly above small quantity, less than commercial) - Rigours of Section 37 inapplicable - However, bail not matter of right - Prima facie material shows recovery from room where petitioner and co-accused present during raid based on secret information - Grounds of arrest need not be communicated if caught red-handed - Prior FIR under same sections indicates criminal antecedents and likelihood of repeat offence - Menace of drug addiction eroding society weighs against bail - Petition dismissed. (Paras 10-16, 20-23)

(B) Bail - Principles - Courts must consider nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, character, likelihood of repetition, witness tampering risk, societal interest - Individual liberty restricted by social interests and rule of law - No mechanical grant; reasoned application of mind required. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail filed alleging false implication, no personal possession of contraband, illegal arrest. Prosecution opposed citing secret information of sale, raid on room, recovery in presence of witnesses, FSL confirmation of heroin, prior FIR under same sections, charge sheet filed.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner prima facie connected to crime; criminal antecedents provide basis for apprehension of similar offence; continued custody serves societal purpose against drug menace.

Issues: Whether arrest illegal for non-communication of grounds; entitlement to bail despite Section 37 rigours not applying; impact of prior NDPS case and societal drug concerns on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail denied notwithstanding intermediate quantity as prima facie involvement established, prior similar offence reflected in antecedents heightens repeat risk, and release would adversely signal against societal fight on drug addiction.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. ndps fir for 6.02g heroin recovery and prior case. (Para 1 , 3)
2. claims false implication, illegal arrest, s37 inapplicable. (Para 2 , 5)
3. bail parameters: offence nature, evidence, antecedents. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. prior ndps fir risks offence repetition. (Para 6)
5. red-handed arrest needs no grounds communication. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. status report proves prima facie involvement. (Para 13)
7. no ndps bail right despite no s37; societal menace. (Para 14 , 15)
8. antecedents justify denying bail if reoffending likely. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
9. liberty restricted by societal peace considerations. (Para 20 , 21)
10. bail denied due to antecedents and ndps gravity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.40/2025, dated 10.07.2025, registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated at the instance of his enemies. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. No contraband was recovered from his possession. As per the prosecution, 6.02 grams of Heroin were recovered from the petitioner’s possession, which is slightly above the small quantity and less than the commercial quantity. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The custody of the petitioner will not serve any fruitful purpose. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by a filing status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 10.07.2025. They received a secret information at about 5:45 P.M. that accused and Anshul Rana was present in Room No. 501 at Hotel Royal Food Point, Shilaroo, and were selling heroin. A huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by his search. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated Ajay Royal and Ajay Kumar and went to Room No. 501. The petitioner, Nanak Dass and Anshul Rana were found present in the room. The police searched the room in their presence and in the presence of witnesses and recovered 6.02 grams of heroin. The police seized heroin and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The heroin was sent to FSL, and as per the report, it indicated the presence of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). F.I.R. No.11/2025 dated 22.01.2025 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Dhalli, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 29.08.2025, and the matter was listed on 26.09.2025 for the consideration of the charge. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Piyush Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Piyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 6.02 grams of heroin, which is slightly more than a small quantity and substantially less than commercial quantity. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, and his arrest is illegal. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner previously under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the possibility that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bai