IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 789 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 Birbal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 07 of 2025, dated 21.01.2025, registered at Police Station Tahilwal, District Una, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police apprehended the petitioner and recovered 11.12 grams of heroin from him. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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 party was on patrolling duty on 21.01.2025. They received a secret information that the petitioner was selling heroin, and in the event of his search huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police went to the spot where the petitioner was found. The police searched the petitioner in the presence of an independent witness and recovered 11.24 grams of heroin from the bag carried by the petitioner. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. As per the report of analysis, the substance was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). The 3 police filed the charge sheet before the learned District and Sessions Judge on 10.03.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent /State. 5. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 21.01.2025, and more than 5 months have elapsed. The trial has not yet commenced. The charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 11.24 grams of heroin. As per information received by the police, the petitioner is a drug peddler. Heroin affects the young generation adversely. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 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 at 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] .] 5 9. 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. 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 6 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. 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) 7 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Perusal of the status report shows that police went to the spot and recovered a bag containing 11.24 grams of heroin from the petitioner; therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act. 13. The quantity of heroin stated to have been found by the police is 11.24 grams, which is an intermediate quantity; therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 14. The petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2025. The status report shows that the charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court. The trial against the petitioner has not commenced, and the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely, hoping for an early commencement of the trial. Keeping in view the quantity found in possession of the 8 petitioner, the further pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. 15. The police have filed a charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court, and the status report does not show that custody of the petitioner is required; therefore, the submission that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody for an indefinite period has to be accepted as correct. 16. It was submitted that an F.I.R. is pending against the petitioner, and the petitioner should not be released on bail, because of the criminal antecedents. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024: INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused in case of his long incarceration. It was observed: “10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may 9 not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.” 17. Since, in the present case, the petitioner has undergone long incarceration, therefore, his criminal antecedents are not sufficient to deny him bail. 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the present case, subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of ₹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 surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and 10 (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. 19. 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. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 21. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Bangarh, Una, District Una, H.P. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 7th July, 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f23c9ea2 7b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375291962d0d9 0d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-07-07 11:23:37 KARAN SINGH GULERIA