IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1672 of 2025. Reserved on: 14.08.2025. Date of Decision: 26.08.2025. Krishan Gopal Saini @ Babbu ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel. 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 FIR No. 423/2024, dated 19.12.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (ND&PS Act). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party intercepted a Scooty bearing registration no. PB12V- 6801 on 19.12.2024 and recovered 5.73 grams of cocaine (sic) from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the dicky of the Scooty, which was registered in the name of Jitender Kumar. The quantity was 05.73 grams, which is slightly more than a small quantity. FIR No. 299/2021, 403.2022 and 05/2023 are pending against the petitioner, but the mere pendency of the FIR is no bar to releasing the petitioner on bail. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 19.12.2024. They received a secret information at about 5:30 pm that heroin was being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No. PB12V-6801. The information was credible. It was reduced to writing and sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Una. The police party associated Vinay Kumar and set up a naka. A Scooty bearing registration No. PB12V-6801 arrived on the spot at about 6:45 pm. The rider identified himself as Krishan Gopal, the present petitioner. The police searched the Scooty and found 5.73 grams of heroin in it. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The heroin was sent to FSL, and as per the result of analysis, it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). FIR Nos. 57/2013, 299/2021, 403/2022 and 5/2023 are pending against the petitioner for the commission of an offence 3 punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. The police filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025, respectively. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Paras Dhaulta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Paras Dhaulta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. No recovery was effected from the personal search of the petitioner, but the recovery was effected from the dickey of the Scotty, which does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.12.2024. The evidence has not commenced, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of the heroin, which is adversely affecting the young generation. The petitioner was involved in the commission of a 4 similar offence earlier, and he would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail. Hence, 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 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), 5 (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 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: — 6 “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) 10. Similar is the judgment in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 7 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner was driving the Scooty from which the recovery was effected. He was the only person riding the Scooty. Therefore, prima facie, he was in possession of the Scooty and the articles lying inside it. Section 21 of the ND&PS Act makes the possession of heroin an offence and not its ownership. Therefore, the ownership of the Scooty is immaterial to determine the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. 13. The status report shows that three FIRs were registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. This report, prima facie, suggests that the petitioner has a criminal history. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. Bail should not be generally granted to an accused with criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 8 14. It was held in Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1103, that the criminal antecedents are relevant to determine the propensity to commit the crime. It was observed: 31. Moreover, the Appellant's criminal antecedents, though not involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple DRI and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes, undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption offences. These antecedents are relevant only for the limited purpose of evaluating the Appellant's propensity to interfere with the process of justice if enlarged on bail. 15. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of his criminal antecedents, he should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 16. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown 9 to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the charge sheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 17. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, especially when the F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner relates to the commission of a similar offence, which shows that the possibility of the petitioner committing a similar offence cannot be ruled out. 18. It was submitted that the quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the Scooty is an intermediate quantity and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. This submission is not acceptable. This Court laid down in Dilbar Khan v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 2441, that a person found in possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. It was observed: “9. No doubt the quantity of contraband in the case is intermediate and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable. Merely because the quantity of contraband recovered is less than the commercial quantity may not, by itself, be sufficient to grant bail. 10. The menace of drug abuse is not unknown in society in modern times. The victims are innocent adolescents, among others. Drug abuse more often than not leads to drug 10 addiction, which ruins the lives of a substantial number of such persons. The question arises as to how young adolescents, who by and large remain in the custody of their guardians, are able to procure the prohibited drug. Definitely, the drug is made available through a supply chain managed in an organised manner.” 19. It was laid down by this Court in Khushi Ram Gupta v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 3779, that the menace of drug addiction has seriously eroded into the fabric of society, and the release of an accused on bail in NDPS Act cases will send a negative signal to society. It was observed: “8. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents and students, has seriously eroded into the fabric of society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation-building into serious peril. 9. It is not a case where the investigating agency is clueless in respect of evidence against the petitioner. Though allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved in accordance with the law, it cannot be taken singly as a factor to grant bail to the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioner to divulge as to how and in what manner he came in contact with the persons who were residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, there is sufficient prima facie material to infer the implication of the petitioner in the crime. In such circumstances, the release of the petitioner on bail will send a negative signal in society, which will definitely be detrimental to its interests. 10. The prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the dangerous trade of contraband cannot be ignored merely on account of the fact that he has no past criminal history. It cannot be guaranteed that there will be re-indulgence by the petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released on bail.” 20. Similarly, it was held in Bunty Yadav v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 4996, that even where the rigours of Section 37 11 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Each case has to be adjudged on its own facts. It was observed: “6. The quantity involved in the case is 89.89 grams of heroin and 3.90 grams of MDMA. Such quantity may not technically fall under the category of commercial quantity; nevertheless, such quantity cannot be termed to be less by any stretch of the imagination. The evident nature of commercial transactions and dealing with the contraband aggravates the situation for the petitioner. In a case where Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The fate depends on the facts of each and every case. 7. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents and students, has seriously eroded into the fabric of society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation-building into serious peril.” 21. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be released on bail simply because the quantity of heroin recovered from his possession was less than a commercial quantity. 22. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. This submission cannot be accepted. The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2024, and the matter is now listed for evidence on 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025. It takes some time to conduct the investigation. The Court has to record the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The period of about eight months in this process is not excessive. The copies of the order sheets have not been filed to 12 show that there is any delay, which is not attributable to the petitioner. The status report shows that the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025. Listing the matter on two consecutive dates shows the anxiety of the learned Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to a speedy trial. 23. No other point was urged. 24. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 25. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge August 26, 2025 (Pramod)