2025:HHC:17293 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1175 of 2025 Reserved on: 28.05.2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2025 Gursewak Singh ...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. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with S.I Ashwani Kumar Police Station Baddi, District Manpura Baddi, Rakesh Kainthla, Judge 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. 10 of 2025, dated 16.01.2025, registered at Police Station Manpura, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17293 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’). As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The story of the prosecution is highly suspicious. There is no link evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The petitioner is the sole earning member of the family. He 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 was on patrolling duty on 16.01.2025. They received a secret informant at 5:00 p.m. that Gursewak Singh was selling heroin in his room No. 25 near Shiv Mandir, and in case of a search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the SDPO, Baddi. The police associated independent witnesses Gian Chand Thakur, Up Pardhan and Gurbachan Singh, Ward Panch, Gram Panchayat Manpura, District Solan, H.P. and went to the room of the petitioner with the independent witnesses. Gursewak Singh and Taranpreet 3 2025:HHC:17293 Singh were found present in the room. The police searched the room and found a packet containing 8.590 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested Gursewak Singh and Taranpreet Singh. The heroin was sent to SFSL, Junga, District Shimla, H.P. and as per the report, the exhibit stated to be heroin is a sample of Diacetylmorphine. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.01.2025. The charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court on 11.03.2025. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in possession of 8.590 grams of heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. 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 4 2025:HHC:17293 prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of heroin, which affects the younger generation adversely. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his 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 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 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 5 2025:HHC:17293 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. Though the competent court is 6 2025:HHC:17293 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. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of 7 2025:HHC:17293 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 is 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 searched the room where petitioner Gursewak Singh and Taran Preet Singh were found in possession of 8.590 grams of heroin, which is slightly more than a small quantity. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 12. The status report shows that the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court on 11.03.2025, which means that the investigation is complete and custodial interrogation of the 8 2025:HHC:17293 petitioner is not required. Therefore, there is no reason to justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner asserted that he is the first offender and no other case was registered against him. It is not stated to be incorrect; rather, it was specifically mentioned that no other case was registered against the petitioner. Being the first offender, the petitioner deserves a chance to reform himself, and by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody, his chance of reformation would become bleak because he would come into contact with hardened criminals. Hence, he is entitled to bail on this consideration. 14. 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. 15. 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 9 2025:HHC:17293 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 the intended 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. 16. 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. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Sub Jail Kishanpura, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 10 2025:HHC:17293 18. 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. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 03rd 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=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e2 25878f23c9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec9393 75291962d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1c e651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-06-03 11:34:25 KARAN SINGH GULERIA