Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) Nos. 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921 and 986 of 2025 Cr. MP (M) Nos. 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921 of 2025 reserved on 16.05.2025 and Cr.MP(M) No. 986 of 2025 reserved on 26.05.2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2025 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 916 of 2025 Mast Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 917 of 2025 Inder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________ 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 918 of 2025 Maan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________ 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 919 of 2025 Dola Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________ 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 920 of 2025 Ram Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________ 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) 6. Cr.MP(M) No. 921 of 2025 Jovan Dassi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _____________________________________ 7. Cr.MP(M) No. 986 of 2025 Prem Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner in Cr. MP (M) Nos. 916, 917, 918,919, 920, 921 of 2025 Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate. For the Petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 986 of 2025 Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, For the respondent in all the petitions Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge All these petitions have been filed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 78 of 2024. Since, they have arisen out of the same FIR, hence, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking their pre-arrest bail in FIR no. 78 of 2024, dated 06.10.2024, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, HP, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). It has been asserted that the petitioners were falsely implicated and that they had nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The petitioners are the joint owners of the land and were falsely implicated because of the joint ownership; hence, the petitions. 3. The State has filed a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 06.10.2024. They found the cannabis growing in the fields at Ghirvi and Nallu. The police associated Rakesh Thakur and Dinesh Kumar and counted the number of plants. These were found to be 10,000 having 5 feet 10 inches. The police preserved 10 plants along with roots and destroyed the rest of the plants. 10 plants were sent to FSL, and as per the result of the analysis, these were confirmed to be cannabis plants. The demarcation was conducted on 27.03.2024, and it was found that the land was jointly owned by various co-sharers. Bhagwan Dass, Sher Singh, Puran Chand, Devender Singh, Bhajan Singh, Kela Singh, Soni Lal @ Veer Singh, Kishan Dass, Shakuntala Devi, Rinku, Ramesh Thakur, Tabe Ram, Pinku Ram, Hem Raj, Pradeep Pantal, Deban Thakur, Hem Raj filed their 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) affidavits. As per the investigation, Jovan Dassi, Prem Chand, Ram Lal, Maan Singh, Inder Singh and Mast Ram are in joint ownership and in possession. The police searched for them, but they have absconded; hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-Mast Ram, Inder Singh, Maan Singh, Dola Ram, Ram Lal, and Jovan Dassi, Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner-Prem Chand and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners- Mast Ram, Inder Singh, Maan Singh, Dola Ram, Ram Lal, Jovan Dassi submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated based on the affidavits executed by the co-owners. The police had not independently verified the correctness of these affidavits. Jovan Dassi is married and resides in her matrimonial home. The petitioners would join the investigation as and when directed to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail. In the alternative, he submitted that in 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) case the Court is not inclined to grant bail, he is prepared to withdraw the petitions. 6. Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner-Prem Chand, adopted the submissions made by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel and prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner-Prem Chand be released on pre-arrest bail. 7. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners were found in possession of the land where 10,000 plants were growing. The number of plants showed that these could not have grown naturally. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to determine the destination of the cannabis; therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre- 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed: “69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 10. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that economic offences are to be treated differently from other offences. It was observed: Economic offences 78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. xxxxxx 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) 80. Observing that an economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364: 1987 SCC (Cri) 364], it was held as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) “5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of the moment, upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit, regardless of the consequences to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.” 81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552], the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” (emphasis supplied) 82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52: 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order [Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-7- 1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 11. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 12. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed: “21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 13. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. Perusal of the status report shows that the police had found 10000 plants of cannabis growing on 03 bighas of land. The number of plants, prima facie, shows that they had not grown naturally and were cultivated. The co-owners have executed their 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) affidavits, police also conducted the investigation and found that the petitioners were responsible for the cultivation of the cannabis plants. These affidavits are to be accepted, prima facie, as correct, therefore, there is sufficient material, at this stage, to connect the petitioners with the cultivation of the plants. The plea that petitioner Jovan Dassi is married and resides in her matrimonial home will not make the prosecution’s case suspect in the absence of the details of the distance between the land and her matrimonial home and the means of transportation available with her. 15. The police had found 10000 plants growing on 03 bighas of land. The cannabis plants produce cannabis, which is used as a narcotic. There is a force in the submissions of Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to determine the destination of the cannabis obtained from these plants. The offences involving narcotics are affecting society, and police should be given a chance to investigate the offences properly. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed: - “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender” 16. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: - “13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must also be kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.” 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) 17. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed: “83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information, and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 18. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, that the Courts should not grant bail in cases under the NDPS Act. It was observed: “9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.” 19. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, keeping in view the number of plants and the nature of the offence alleged against them. 20. It was submitted that the petitioners are prepared to withdraw the petitions in case the Court is not inclined to grant bail. This submission is only stated to be rejected. It was laid down 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17297 ) by the Delhi High Court in Awaneesh Chandra Jha v. Anil Prasad Nanda, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1866, that the Court is not a casino for a litigant to place a bet and later on withdraw from the proceedings if he finds that he has a losing hand. It was observed: “47. A court is not a casino for a litigant to place a bet masquerading as a legal claim, and to later withdraw from the proceedings if he finds he has a losing hand. No legal proceedings may be initiated by a litigant by way merely of a gamble as if placing a wager, from which the litigant may conveniently withdraw at any time, if matters are not going his way.” 21. Therefore, the submission that the petitioners are ready to withdraw the petitions if the Court is not inclined to grant them relief will not help them, and the conditional withdrawal cannot be allowed. 22. In view of the above, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petitions fail, and the same are dismissed. 23. The observations made here-in-before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) 3rd June,2025 Judge (saurav pathania)