Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 851 (HP)

Lalit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-30

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. 17 of 2025, dated 30.01.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner was falsely implicated. The police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The investigation is complete. No recovery is to be effected from 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 party had set up a Nakka near HRTC Petrol Pump Dhalli, Shimla, on 30.01.2025 at 2:30 p.m. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP63-A-8878 came to the spot. The motorcycle rider had a backpack. The police signalled the motorcycle rider to stop and asked him about the backpack. He could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the backpack. The police searched the backpack in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered 220.41 grams of charas. The motorcycle rider identified himself as Lalit Singh (present petitioner). The police arrested the petitioner and seized the Charas. The charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per result of the analysis, the sample was found to contain Tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hairs. No other case is registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offence in case he is released on bail. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of charas, and the 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. 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. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the quantity of charas found in possession of the petitioner shows that the same could not have been meant for self-consumption. Narcotics are affecting the younger generation adversely; therefore, no leniency should be shown in the present case. 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 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 an 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. Status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner is a drug peddler and should not be released on bail. There is insufficient material to substantiate this submission. The petitioner asserted that he does not have any criminal antecedents. This fact was not denied in the status report; rather, it was asserted that no criminal case was registered against the petitioner. This corroborates the plea of the petitioner that he has no criminal antecedents. It is difficult to believe that no case would have been registered against a drug peddler, and the submission advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is a drug peddler and not entitled to bail cannot be accepted. 13. This corroborates the plea of the petitioner that he has no criminal antecedents. It is difficult to believe that no case would have been registered against a drug peddler, and the submission advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is a drug peddler and not entitled to bail cannot be accepted. 13. It was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is a resident of Nepal and he is likely to abscond in case of his release on bail. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish two local sureties to remove this apprehension to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner would abscond in case he is released on bail cannot be accepted. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution's evidence in case he is released on bail. This apprehension by itself is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be removed by imposing strict conditions on the petitioner. 15. The petitioner was arrested on 30.01.2025. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and it would take some time to try the case. The petitioner cannot be detained in judicial custody for an indefinite period, hoping for the earlier conclusion of the trial. 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 ?1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner, while on bail, 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 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. 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 surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. (vi) 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. 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. 18. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Kaithu Jail 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, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.