SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J. 
Amit Luthra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2347 of 2025
Decided On : 03-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Hemant Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 6.780 grams of heroin; allegations claimed as false - The Court emphasized the seriousness of drug-related offences and the need for careful consideration of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The petitioner was found prima facie involved in the crime and not entitled to bail despite the quantity being less than commercial. (Paras 8 to 19)

(B) Bail Guidelines - Parameters for granting bail based on prior judgments include the nature of charges, likelihood of repetition of crime, and the potential risk to public safety. The petitioner’s prior accusations and the gravity of this case warranted denying bail. (Paras 10 to 19)

JUDGMENT : 

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 139 of 2025, dated 16.08.2025, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated on the allegation that 6 grams of heroin was recovered from him. The allegations are false, and the petitioner has not committed any offence. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. FIR no. 240 of 2023, dated 7th November 2023, was registered at Police Station Boileauganj District, Shimla, against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the court may impose; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 16th August 2025 near Goel Motors at around 3:15 PM. They received a secret information that a person named Amit Luthra had brought heroin for sale to the public. The information was credible. It was reduced to writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer, Police Station Boileauganj. The police went to the spot and found the petitioner standing near the office of the Shimla Airport Taxi Operator Union. The petitioner identified himself as Amit Luthra. He had a backpack with him. The police searched the backpack and recovered an electronic weighing scale and a transparent packet containing 6.780 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and the weighing scale and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to FSL, and as per the report of analysis, it was confirmed to be a sample of diacetylmorphine (heroin). FIR No. 240 of 2023, dated 07.11.2023, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV) in Police Station Bolieauganj, District Shimla. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Hemant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Hemant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police is less than a commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 

6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier, and he is likely to commit a similar offence if released on bail. Therefore, 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) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:-

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)
“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of th




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top