2025:HHC:17737 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1013 of 2025 Reserved on: 28.05.2025 Date of Decision: 05.06.2025 Anil Kumar @ Anu ...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. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 27 of 2025 dated 03.04.2025, registered at the Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17737 petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and there is no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 03.04.2025. They received secret information at 2:30 p.m. that the petitioner was selling the drugs from his house. The police associated Drugs Inspector Lovely Thakur and sent the information to the Supervisory Officer. Up Pardhan Rakesh Kumar, Raman Kumar, Shiv Dutt, Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Prito Devi were associated. The police searched the house of Anil Kumar and recovered prohibited drugs, which were seized by the Drugs Inspector. The police also recovered 154 grams of charas. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the charas. The charas was sent to SFSL, Dharamshala, H.P., and as per result of analyses, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The petitioner revealed that he is addicted to the consumption of charas and extracted the charas for himself. F.I.R. No. 53 of 2015 and F.I.R. No. 35 of 2016 were registered against the 3 2025:HHC:17737 petitioner, which were compounded. The police are yet to prepare the final report on the matter. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner would abide by 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. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a huge quantity of charas. Two F.I.R.s. were registered against him previously. 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. 4 2025:HHC:17737 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 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, how 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 5 2025:HHC:17737 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 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) 6 2025:HHC:17737 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) 9. A similar view was taken 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. Perusal of the status report shows that the police has recovered 154 grams of charas. The police also stated in the status report that the petitioner is an addict of charas and he had extracted the charas for himself. Thus, the petitioner is a drug 7 2025:HHC:17737 addict and not a drug peddler. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the State that the petitioner is a drug peddler and his conduct adversely affects society cannot be accepted. The petitioner requires reformation and not punishment. In the event of his continued detention, he would come into contact with hardened criminals, which would reduce his chances of reformation. 12 It was submitted that the two F.I.Rs were registered against the petitioner, however, the status report shows that they were compounded and cannot be used against the petitioner. Hence, the bail cannot be denied because of the two FIRs against the petitioner. 13. It was stated that police had found the prohibited drugs in the possession of the petitioner, for which action is being taken by the Drugs Inspector. However, no details of the drugs were given, and this circumstance cannot be used against the petitioner to deny bail to him bail. 14. The status report shows that the police have not filed a charge sheet, which means that it would take some time to file the charge sheet, and some time would be spent on the conclusion of 8 2025:HHC:17737 the trial. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period, hoping for the early conclusion of the trial. 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of district Chamba, H.P. It is not stated to be incorrect in the status report. It means that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 16. It was submitted that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses, and he can abscond in case of his release on bail. However, no material was placed on record to justify these apprehensions. These apprehensions can be removed by imposing conditions, and bail cannot be denied to the petitioner because of the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution. 17. 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 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; 9 2025:HHC:17737 (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 the intended visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned, and the Trial Court, and he will furnish his local address to the concerned Police Station. (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. 18. 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. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent District Jail Chamba, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. 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. 10 2025:HHC:17737 21. 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. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 05th June, 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=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f23c9 ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375291962d 0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-06-05 11:12:30 KARAN SINGH GULERIA