Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 240 (HP)

Paras v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-01

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 36 of 2024, dated 27.2.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is innocent, and he has not committed any offence. No recovery was effected from the petitioner, and there is nothing to connect him with the commission of crime. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Salogra. He has deep roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 27.2.2024. The matter was listed on 19.12.2024 for the service of accused Mohammad Khalid. There is no likelihood of the early commencement of the trial. FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 6.6.2022, was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 27.2.2024 when they received a secret information that Kapil and petitioner Paras were occupying Seat Nos. 5 and 6 in the bus bearing registration No. HR-55GV-3524. They were transporting heroin. The police completed the formalities and checked the bus. The petitioner was occupying Seat No.6, and Kapil was occupying Seat No.5. Kapil had a bag with him. The police checked the bag in the presence of the witnesses and recovered 7.82 grams of heroin during the search. Police arrested the petitioner and Kapil and seized the heroin. The police interrogated the petitioner and Kapil, who revealed that they had purchased 8 grams of heroin from Mohammad Khalid for Rs.20,000/-. The police also arrested Mohammad Khalid. The call details record of the petitioner and Mohammad Khalid showed that they were in touch with each other. Mohammad Khalid was released on interim bail, but he absconded. As per the result of the analysis, the substance recovered was confirmed to be Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin). FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 06.06.2022, was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Parwanoo. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of release on bail. Mohammad Khalid was released on interim bail, but he absconded. As per the result of the analysis, the substance recovered was confirmed to be Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin). FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 06.06.2022, was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Parwanoo. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of release on bail. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 6.3.2025. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Parikshit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. No recovery was effected from him. The police have relied upon the petitioner’s confession, which is not legally admissible. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is the brother of Kapil, from whom 7.82 grams of heroin was recovered. The petitioner was in touch with Mohammad Khalid, and he was earlier involved in the commission of a similar offence. He would commit a similar offence in case of release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that 7.82 grams of heroin was recovered from the bag being carried by the accused and Kapil. The petitioner was sitting with accused Kapil, and he (the petitioner) was not found in possession of any incriminating substance. 10. The status report shows that the police interrogated the petitioner and Kapil, and they revealed during the interrogation that the heroin was purchased by them from Mohammad Khalid. The police also relied upon the call details record to connect the petitioner with Mohammad Khalid. 10. The status report shows that the police interrogated the petitioner and Kapil, and they revealed during the interrogation that the heroin was purchased by them from Mohammad Khalid. The police also relied upon the call details record to connect the petitioner with Mohammad Khalid. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. Further, the confession made by the co-accused is inadmissible because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was observed at page 568:- 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47 ] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 11. Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to the police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to the police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused implicating the petitioner. 12. A similar situation arose before this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri.L.J.4564, and it was held that a confession of the co-accused and the phone calls are not sufficient to deny bail to a person. 13. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 21 1 that where the police have no material except the call details record and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. It was observed:- “ [16] In the facts of the instant case also the prosecution, for implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the confessional statement made by accused Dabe Ram and secondly the CDR details of calls exchanged between the petitioner and the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking into consideration the evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details involving the phone number of the petitioner and the mobile phone number of the wife of coaccused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the existence of a prime facie case against the petitioner and had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. [17] Since the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold a prima facie case against the accused person(s), in Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for maintainability of his successive bail application as also for grant of bail in his favour. [18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. [18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC 1 Further, on the basis of aforesaid elucidation, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 14. A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023, Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023, decided on 06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of 2023, decided on 15.05.2023, 15. The status report is silent regarding any recovery from Mohammad Khalid. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mohammad Khalid was discovered pursuant to the statement made by the petitioner, and no reliance can be placed upon the confession made by the petitioner or co-accused to connect them with the commission of a crime. The call details record is insufficient in the absence of any other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Hence, the material on record prima facie does not show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of a crime. 16. It was submitted that an FIR was registered against the petitioner, and he is not entitled to bail because of his criminal antecedents. The criminal antecedents would have been relevant had any material been placed on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime in the present case. The petitioner cannot be detained in custody in the present case merely because he was involved in the commission of an offence earlier. Hence, the pendency of the FIR is not sufficient to detain the petitioner in custody in the present case. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Hence, the pendency of the FIR is not sufficient to detain the petitioner in custody in the present case. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 18. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.