2025:HHC:20301 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1214of 2025 Reserved on: 20.06.2025 Date of Decision: 28.06.2025. Rahul ...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. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 17 of 2025, dated 31.01.2025, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (“in short NDPS Act”). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20301 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the police intercepted a bus bearing registration No. HP72A-6039 and 8.53 grams of heroin were recovered from the bag of co-accused Priyanka. The petitioner was travelling in the bus. He and co-accused Priyanka were arrested. The petitioner has nothing to do with co-accused Priyaka. No recovery was effected from him. He was falsely implicated due to some information given by an unknown person. The charge sheet has been filed, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. Therefore, it was prayed that the present 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 31.01.2025. They received a secret information at about 2:40 pm that Priyanka and Rahul were transporting heroin in the bus bearing registration No. HP-72A-6039. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the SDPO Una. Police intercepted the bus and found that co-accused Priyanka was occupying Seat No.22 and Rahul, present petitioner, was occupying Seat No.20. The police searched Rahul and Priyanka in the presence of the driver and conductor. One polythene packet 3 2025:HHC:20301 was recovered from the purse of the Priyanka. The police checked the contents of the packet and found 8.53 grams of heroin in it. The police arrested the petitioner and Priyanka and seized the heroin. The heroin was sent to FSL, and as per the result, it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). F.I.R. No. 103 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner, which is listed for prosecution evidence on 18.06.2025. The petitioner intimidate the witnesses and indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. He was travelling in the bus as a passenger and had nothing to do with the recovery of heroin from co-accused Priyanka. He is a young person, and his future would be spoiled by keeping him in judicial custody. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court impose. Therefore, 4 2025:HHC:20301 he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of two bus tickets, one of which belonged to co-accused Priyanka. This falsifies the defence version that co-accused Priyanka was not known to the petitioner. Heroin adversely affects the young generation, and no leniency should be shown to a drug peddler. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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 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 5 2025:HHC:20301 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] .] 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 6 2025:HHC:20301 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 the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the 7 2025:HHC:20301 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) 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. The status report shows that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested because information was received that Priyanka and Rahul had indulged in the sale and purchase of heroin. This information is not a legally admissible piece of evidence because it is based upon the information received from an unknown person who has not been cited as a witness, and the purpose of using the information is to prove its truthfulness; therefore, no advantage can be derived from the information. 8 2025:HHC:20301 13 The police recovered a bus ticket of two persons from the petitioner for travelling for two persons from Hoshiarpur to Una of. The police also recovered one bus ticket for two persons from Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur in the purse of Priyanka. The name of the passengers was not mentioned in the ticket, therefore, the inference drawn by the prosecution that the ticket pertained to Rahul and Priyanka is not supported by the ticket. 14. In any case, buying the ticket or even knowing co- accused Priyanka will not implicate the petitioner unless he knew that Priyanka was transporting heroin and had abetted in such transportation in any manner. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner to heroin or Priyaka; therefore, the submission of the petitioner that there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime has to be, prima facie, accepted as correct. 15. Police have filed the charge sheet, and the matter is now listed for checking of copies. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 16. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents; however, in the absence of any material to connect 9 2025:HHC:20301 the petitioner with the commission of a crime, the mere criminal antecedents are not sufficient to detain the petitioner in custody. 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 shall join the investigation as and when directed to do so. (ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing before the competent Court 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 concerned, 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 10 2025:HHC:20301 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 Jail Superintendent District Jail Una, District Una, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th 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=e5d61f6599be410af7c5f0b57379e225878f23c 9ea27b281046985b3b1fe0b75, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f72cf9165791d55ec939375291962 d0d90d094876bd59591426c0b1ce651f01f, CN=KARAN SINGH GULERIA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-06-28 13:27:56 KARAN SINGH GULERIA