2025:HHC:31483 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1669 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Abhinash Saini ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.79 of 2025, dated 24.04.2025, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. It has been asserted thatthe police apprehended the petitioner and recovered 8.76 grams of heroin. The quantity of heroin in possession of the petitioner is less than a commercial 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:31483 quantity,and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The police completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is the only earning member of the family, and his family is facing hardship due to his detention. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 24.04.2025. They found the accused sitting in the shed of the crematorium, holding a syringe and a steel spoon. He had kept a carry bag on the bench. He tried to run away from the spot after seeing the police, but the police apprehended him. The police searched the carry bag and recovered 8.76 grams of heroin. The police seized heroin, a syringe, and a steel spoon, and arrested the petitioner. Heroin was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, H.P., and it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin) after the analysis. The charge-sheet was filed before the Court, and the matter was listed for checking of copies on 02.08.2025. Hence, the status report. 3 2025:HHC:31483 4. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The status report shows that the petitioner was trying to inject heroin to himself. He is not a drug peddler but the victim of circumstances. His release will not affect any person. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of heroin, which is adversely affecting the younger generation. No leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 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 4 2025:HHC:31483 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), (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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts against the superficial examination of the bail consideration in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, and it was observed at page 177: 5 2025:HHC:31483 “18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner was found sitting in the shed holding a steel spoon and a syringe. He had kept a carry bag containing 8.76 grams of heroin near him. Hence, prima facie, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. 12. The status report also shows that the petitioner was holding a syringe and a steel spoon, which shows he is a drug addict. Hence, there is a force in the submission that the petitioner is a victim of circumstances and not a drug peddler. No other case was registered against him. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the State that the release of the petitioner would adversely affect the young generation is without any basis. 6 2025:HHC:31483 13. The petitioner is a first offender, and he deserves a chance to reform himself. His continued detention in prison will expose him to hardened criminals, and the chances of his reformation would become bleak. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 14. The police have filed the charge-sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The charges have not been framed, and it will take some time to frame the charges and conclude the trial. Keeping in view the quantity of heroin stated to have been found in possession of the petitioner, his pre-trial detention is not justified. 15. It has been submitted that the petitioner will influence the witnesses and would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions upon the petitioner, and it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 16. Consequently, 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. 7 2025:HHC:31483 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. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, District & Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.,and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 8 2025:HHC:31483 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th September 2025. (ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af13632 04ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553 803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2025-09-15 13:22:54 RAVINDER KUMAR