Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Anshul Rana - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Rspondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2267 of 2025
Decided On : 15-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Anuj Bali, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

In NDPS cases with intermediate quantity, bail denied considering criminal antecedents, offence repetition risk, and societal drug menace, even absent Section 37 rigours; arrest valid if red-handed; co-accused statements inadmissible.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21 & 29 - Bail in NDPS cases - Recovery of intermediate quantity of heroin (slightly above small quantity) - Prior case under same sections against accused - Rigours of Section 37 inapplicable - Grounds of arrest need not be separately communicated if accused caught red-handed - Statement of co-accused during investigation inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 Evidence Act - Bail not matter of right even if Section 37 inapplicable - Criminal antecedents relevant; release sends negative signal to society amid drug menace eroding social fabric - Bail discretion exercised considering nature of offence, evidence, punishment severity, repetition likelihood, societal interests. (Paras 8, 10-19, 23)

(B) Bail - Principles - Courts must judiciously consider prima facie case, accusation gravity, accused character/antecedents, repetition danger, witness tampering apprehension, justice obstruction risk - Liberty balanced against societal peace; no anarchy from undue bail in serious offences. (Paras 8, 23)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail claiming false implication by enemies, non-communication of arrest grounds, no contraband recovery from possession, intermediate quantity attracting no Section 37 rigours. Prosecution opposed citing secret information-led raid on hotel room, recovery of 6.02 grams heroin from possession, prior NDPS FIR, charge sheet filed, repetition risk amid youth drug impact.

Findings of Court:
Arrest legal as petitioner caught red-handed with contraband; co-accused statement (if admissible) implicates petitioner in procurement/sale; antecedents show repetition likelihood; drug menace warrants caution; no fruitful custody purpose outweighed by societal harm.

Issues: Whether arrest illegal for non-communication of grounds; co-accused statement exonerates petitioner; intermediate quantity entitles bail as right; prior antecedents irrelevant absent Section 37 applicability.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail denied despite intermediate quantity and inapplicable Section 37, as criminal antecedents, prima facie involvement in possession/sale, repetition apprehension, and societal drug peril justify refusal; tentative bail findings in prior case non-binding; observations limited to bail disposal.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. fir for ndps possession of 6.02g heroin. (Para 1 , 3)
2. petitioner alleges false implication, illegal arrest. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. state cites prior ndps fir, recidivism risk. (Para 6 , 19)
4. bail requires balancing liberty and societal interests. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 23)
5. red-handed arrest needs no separate grounds notice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. co-accused statement inadmissible but shows conspiracy. (Para 15 , 16)
7. no ndps bail right absent section 37 rigours. (Para 17 , 18)
8. antecedents bar bail in repeat ndps cases. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 25)
9. prior bail findings tentative on merits. (Para 24)
10. bail petition dismissed; observations bail-limited. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.40 of 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 the petitioner Anshul Rana and Nanak Chand were present in Room No. 501 at Hotel Royal Food Point, Shilaroo, and were selling heroin. A huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by their 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, where the petitioner, Anshul Rana and Nanak Dass were found. 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.107 of 2024, dated 14.8.2024, was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sadar, 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 Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anuj Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy 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. 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 a 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