Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Dhan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2578 of 2025
Decided On : 17-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Kunal Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Bail denied in NDPS case to accused with multiple prior offences and absconding history, prioritizing criminal antecedents, repetition risk, trial presence security, and societal protection from drug menace over liberty.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Recovery of 9.93 grams of heroin (intermediate quantity) and digital weighing machine from kiosk - Accused has five prior cases under NDPS Act showing criminal antecedents - Previously enlarged on bail but failed to appear claiming ailment, leading to cancellation and forfeiture - Prima facie involvement established; considering severity of offence, punishment, repetition likelihood, antecedents, and inability to secure trial presence, bail denied as circumstances override normal rule of bail, not jail. (Paras 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, 21)

(B) Bail - Principles - Courts must weigh nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, accused character, antecedents, repetition risk, witness tampering apprehension, public interest - Individual liberty restricted by societal peace; in drug cases, release sends negative signal amid addiction menace eroding society - No right to bail even for intermediate quantity if facts adverse. (Paras 8, 12-16, 23-25)

(C) Bail cancellation - Purpose to secure accused presence at trial; absconding compromises fair trial even if claimed due to ailment - No exemption sought via counsel; conduct shows presence cannot be ensured on enlargement. (Paras 18, 21-22)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail in case involving alleged possession/sale of heroin. Earlier bail granted by trial court but accused absented, bonds cancelled upon arrest; fresh application dismissed. Prosecution status: patrolling team on secret information searched kiosk, recovered contraband confirmed as heroin, accused arrested; multiple prior NDPS cases; trial at prosecution witnesses stage.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner not entitled to bail; criminal antecedents, absconding history, prima facie case necessitate denial to prevent repetition and protect society.

Issues: Whether enlargement justified despite antecedents, prior non-appearance, intermediate quantity; if rigours of rigours under NDPS relaxed; balance of liberty against societal order.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS matters, antecedents of similar offences, conduct indicating flight risk or repetition propensity justify bail refusal; judicious discretion requires prima facie assessment, not mechanical grant; societal harmony prevails over unchecked liberty where drug trade threatens public. Result : Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. ndps fir for heroin possession and prior bail cancellation. (Para 2 , 3)
2. parties contend innocence versus societal harm. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. bail granted judiciously per supreme court parameters. (Para 8 , 9)
4. prima facie heroin recovery implicates petitioner. (Para 10)
5. criminal antecedents bar bail to prevent recidivism. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. absconding forfeits bail to secure trial presence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. no bail right in ndps despite intermediate quantity. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
8. 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. 61 of 2024, dated 08.05.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in FIR No. 61 of 2024, dated 08.05.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. He was granted bail by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, on 17.10.2024. He failed to appear before the Court, and his bail bonds were cancelled. He was arrested. He filed a bail application, but it was dismissed on 20.08.2025. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party were on patrolling duty on 08.05.2024. They received a secret information that the petitioner was selling heroin, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered during the search of his Kiosk (Dhara). The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated Rajinder Negi and Kamlesh Sharma and went to the Dhara of the accused. The police found the petitioner Dhan Singh and Vikas Kumar in Dhara. The police searched the Dhara in the presence of the witnesses and recovered a pouch containing 9.93 grams of heroin and a digital weighing machine. The police seized the heroin and the digital weighing machine and arrested the petitioner and the co- accused. The heroin was sent to SFSL, Junga and was confirmed to be Diacetyal morphine. FIR No. 144/2017, FIR No. 262/23, FIR No. 82/11, FIR No. 150/2015 and FIR No.06/2024 are registered against the petitioner under various provisions of the NDPS Act. The charge sheet was filed before the Court, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 20.11.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He was granted bail by the Court. He could not appear before the Court because of his ailment, and his bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State of H.P. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of heroin, which is adversely affecting the society. No leniency should be shown to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

“57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while