Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 444 (HP)

Gagandeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-22

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 104 of 2024, dated 28 th November 2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 20.01 grams of heroin. The police have filed a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Solan. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The petitioner will adhere to the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. The petitioner was arrested on 28 th November 2024, and his trial has not yet commenced. The matter was listed on 15 th March, 2025 for consideration of charge. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 28.11.2024. When they reached near Sabzi Mandi, Parwanoo, at about 6.00 PM, HC Manoj Kumar received a secret information that the petitioner was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. HP-63A-4178. He was transporting a huge quantity of heroin. The information was credible. It was reduced into writing and was sent to a supervisory ofÏcer. The police stopped the bus at 6.45 PM. The police checked the passengers in the presence of the driver and conductor. The petitioner was found on Seat No. 30. He had a pink backpack. The police checked the backpack and found 20.01 grams of heroin in it. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. It was sent to FSL for analysis and was found to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 15.3.2025. 3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 15.3.2025. 3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Parikshit Rathour, 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 from the possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 20 grams of heroin which could not have been for his consumption. Heroin is adversely affecting the younger generation. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar crime in case of release on bail. Hence 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 follows: - “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 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. 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 the petitioner was found in possession of 20 grams of heroin which is more than a small quantity and less than a commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. 10. The petitioner submitted that he does not have any criminal antecedents. This fact has been confirmed to be correct in the status report. Thus, the plea taken by the police that the petitioner is a drug peddler and is adversely affecting the younger generation is not established on the record. 11. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of Punjab. This was not stated to be incorrect. Therefore, there is no chance of the petitioner absconding in case of his release on bail. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. However, no material was placed on record to substantiate this apprehension. Moreover, the apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufÏcient to deny bail to the petitioner. 13. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. However, no material was placed on record to substantiate this apprehension. Moreover, the apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufÏcient to deny bail to the petitioner. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ?50,000/- 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. 14. 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. 15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 16. 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.