Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1317 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.6.2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025. Abhishek Mehra ...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. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 24 of 2025, dated 8.4.2025, registered at Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution’s case, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration number PB- 01E-9829 and recovered heroin from it. The petitioner was traveling in the vehicle. The prosecution's version is false, and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on a patrolling duty on 08.04.2025. They received a secret information at 4:00 PM that a vehicle bearing registration No. PB01E-9829 was transporting a huge quantity of heroin. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring the warrant would have led to the destruction of the heroin; hence, the information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was sent to the SDPO, Theog. The police associated Devender Singh as an independent witness and set up a nakka. The police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. PB01E-9829. The driver revealed his name as Mohammad Mohin. The person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Abhishek Mehra (the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) present petitioner). The person sitting on the rear seat identified himself as Robin Singh, and the person beside him identified herself as Shabana. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 54.420 grams of heroin from the bag kept on the rear seat. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. Robin Singh revealed during the investigation that he had purchased the heroin from Shinu for ₹ 1,00,000/- on credit. He also made a disclosure statement on 10.04.2025 and identified Ajay Thakur as the purchaser of the heroin. The substance was sent to FSL and was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin). Shabana revealed during the interrogation that she and Robin Singh used to sell heroin; however, they did not disclose the source or destination of the heroin. No criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses, and he would abscond in case of release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 5. Mr. Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the vehicle is less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The recovery was effected from the co-accused as per the prosecution version, and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of the heroin, which is adversely affecting the younger generation. No sympathy should be shown to the petitioner; 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: - 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) “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), (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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 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) 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 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. 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. Perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner was found in the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01E-9829 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) from which 54.420 grams of heroin were recovered. In Madan Lal versus State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1664: 2003 SCC OnLineSC 874, the contraband was recovered from a vehicle, and it was held that all the occupants of the vehicle would be in conscious possession of the contraband. It was observed: “19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, and as noted by the trial court, they were known to each other, and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle. 20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act, which relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be conscious possession. 21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with the requisite mental element, i.e., conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted. 22. The expression “possession” is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in the Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [(1979) 4 SCC 274: 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038: AIR 1980 SC 52] to work out a completely logical and precise definition of “possession” uniformly applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 23. The word “conscious” means awareness of a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. 24. As noted in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 194: 1972 SCC (Cri) 678: AIR 1972 SC 1756], possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in the case in question, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. 25. The word “possession” means the legal right to possession (see Heath v. Drown [(1972) 2 All ER 561: 1973 AC 498: (1972) 2 WLR 1306 (HL)] ). In an interesting case, it was observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his mother's flat, which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. (See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness [(1976) 1 All ER 844: 1976 QB 966 : (1976) 2 WLR 361 (QBD)] .) 26. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54, where also presumption is also available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. 27. In the factual scenario of the present case, not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused-appellants that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act.” 13. The petitioner was travelling in the vehicle from which recovery was effected; hence, he was prima facie in possession of heroin. 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 14. A perusal of the status report shows that the police had recovered 55.420 grams of heroin from the vehicle, and the co- accused Robin Singh disclosed the name of Ajay Thakur as the purchaser who was also arrested by the police. Ajay Thakur was also found to be chatting with Robin Singh. Thus, the status report shows that Robin Singh is the main drug peddler who is supplying heroin to various persons. 15. The status report shows that the involvement of the petitioner was found from his friendship with Robin Sharma. This is prima facie not sufficient. The status report also reads that no previous case was registered against the petitioner, which does not corroborate the plea taken by the police that the petitioner is a drug peddler. The petitioner is a young person, and he deserves a chance to reform himself. In case of his continued detention, he will come in contact with hardened criminals, and the chances of his reformation would become bleak. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 16. 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 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 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 on each and every hearing 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 to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. 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. 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20108 ) 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 20. 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 27th June, 2025 (saurav pathania) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.06.27 12:14:15 NPT