Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 387 (HP)

Gopal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-17

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 F.I.R. No. 08 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in the society. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He 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 party was on patrolling duty on 24.01.2025. ASI-Anil Kumar received secret information at 4:10 pm that the petitioner was selling charas in his village, and in the case of his search, a huge quantity of charas could be recovered. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated independent witnesses and proceeded towards the village. They found the petitioner coming towards them with a bag. The petitioner threw the bag and ran away. The police checked the bag in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered 443.230 grams of charas. The police seized the charas. The petitioner was arrested on 31.01.2025. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The charas was sent to FSL, Junga and confirmed to be charas. The challan has been prepared and is being checked by the learned APP; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Ravi Tanta, 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. He was not apprehended on the spot. The quantity stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. He was not apprehended on the spot. The quantity stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by all 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. 5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a huge quantity of charas, which could not have been meant for self-consumption. The offences involving narcotics are on the increase and should not be viewed lightly. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence, in case of his 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P ., ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . 8. This position was reiterated 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 Maharastra (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. 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. 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 bail application 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. 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) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 443.230 grams of charas, which is less than the commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 12. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the quantity of charas found in possession of the petitioner is huge and could not have been meant for self-consumption. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. There is no material to substantiate this apprehension. The petitioner specifically asserted that he has no criminal antecedents and the status report confirms this fact by stating that no previous case was found registered against the petitioner. This shows that the prosecution’s version regarding the petitioner being a drug peddler is not supported by the registration of an FIR against him. 13. The bail cannot be withheld as a punishment to a person before his trial. This shows that the prosecution’s version regarding the petitioner being a drug peddler is not supported by the registration of an FIR against him. 13. The bail cannot be withheld as a punishment to a person before his trial. The purpose of pre-trial detention is to ensure that the accused faces the charge, which is to be framed against him. When the presence can be secured by the bail, the pre-trial detention is not justified. The petitioner asserted that he is a local resident of the area, which was not stated to be incorrect. This shows that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding; hence, the pre-trial detention of the petition is not justified. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 15. The status report shows that the challan has been prepared and is pending scrutiny by the learned APP. This means that the challan is not likely to be filed soon. The conclusion of the trial will also take some time and the petitioner cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 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 the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) 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. 17. 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. 17. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order will be sent to the Superintendent, Sub Jail Kaithu, Shimla, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.