IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMPs(M) No. : 1660 & 1661 of 2025 Reserved on : 24.07.2025 Decided on : 31.07.2025 CrMP(M) No.1660 of 2025 Tilak Raj …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent CrMP(M) No.1661 of 2025 Charan Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________________ For the applicant(s) : Ms. Geetanjali, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H. S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by the common order, as the applicants have 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 preferred these applications, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), apprehending their arrest in case FIR No. 26/2025, dated 31.03.2025, registered under Section 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the ND&PS Act”), with Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P. 2. The applicants have filed the present applications for passing a direction, in their favour, directing the police/Investigating Officer of Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above-noted FIR. 3. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present case, at the instance of the police. 3.1 The applicants have termed the case of the police as false and fabricated. According to them, they are senior citizens and are apprehending their arrest in the above noted FIR. 3.2 The applicants have given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case any direction is issued under Section 482 of BNSS. 3 3.3 The applicants have filed similar applications before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Chamba, however, the said applications were withdrawn on 28.06.2025. 3.4 On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Geetanjali, learned Counsel appearing vice Mr. Virender Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants has prayed that the present applications may kindly be allowed. 4. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 31.03.2025, Inspector Sarabjeet Singh, ANTF-FU Kangra, has submitted a rukka to Police Station Chowari, disclosing therein, that on 31.03.2025, he, along with other police officials, in his private vehicle No. HP38D-5455, was on duty to collect information regarding narcotic drugs. When he was present near Chowari bazaar, at about 1:00 in the noon, then, he received a secret information that in Village Matholu, Tilak Raj and Charan Singh had illegally cultivated the opium plants and in case, if the said area is checked, then, large quantity of illegally cultivated opium can be found. 4.1 The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As such, I.O. complied with the provisions of 4 Section 42(2) of the ND&PS Act and submitted the report to SDPO Chowari. At about 1:33 in the noon, Police Station Chowari was requested to send the help, upon which, at about 2:30 pm ASI Surjeet Singh and Constable Anil Kumar reached there. Along with them, the I.O. proceeded towards the spot. At about 3:00 pm, they reached at village Matholu. 4.2 Local Up-Pradhan Sukh Dev, Gram Panchayat Kuddi was contacted and he was called on the spot. He was apprised about the secret information and was associated in the raiding party. Thereafter, the Tehsildar was contacted to know about the ownership of those fields and was requested to send the Patwari on the spot. At about 3:30 pm, Sh. Amit Kishore, Patwari, Patwar Circle Kahari reached at the spot. He was apprised about the factual position and was associated as independent witness. 4.3 Thereafter, in their presence, the fields of applicants Tilak Raj and Charan Singh were inspected, where, illegal cultivation of opium was found. On inquiry, Amit Kishore Patwari has disclosed that adjoining to the house of applicant Charan Singh son of Jamir Singh, four fields are of Charan Singh and other two fields are of his 5 real brother applicant Tilak Raj. Patwari Amit Kishore also disclosed that he will produce the revenue record of those fields, in which the cultivation of opium was found. Thereafter, in the four fields of applicant Charan Singh, 130 plants of opium were found, out of which, ten plants were separated, along with roots, as samples and packed in white coloured sack, whereas 355 plants were found in the fields of applicant Tilak Raj, out of which, ten plants were separated along with roots, for sample and were put in a plastic sack and were sealed. Thus, total 485 plants of opium were found on the spot. After separating the samples of twenty plants, rest of the plants were destroyed, after obtaining the orders from the seniors. NCB-1 form in triplicate, was filled-in and other codal formalities were completed. 5. It is the further case of the police that on 28.04.2025, demarcation was got conducted by the I.O. from the Kanungo. Report was submitted by Kanungo on 06.05.2025. As per the report, the land, upon which, the illegal cultivation of the opium was done was found to be in the cultivating possession of applicants Charan Singh and Tilak Raj. The statements of witnesses, under Section 180 of BNSS, were recorded. 6 6. The applicants, in the present case, have been named as accused, under the provisions of Section 18 of ND&PS Act. 7. The ND&PS Act is a special statute, dealing with the menace of drugs. Much has been argued about the alleged non-possession of the applicants over the land, from which, the illegal cultivation of opium was found, but, at this stage, the specific stand, as taken by the police, qua the fact that in the demarcation report also, the cultivating possession of the applicants was found over the land, in which, the illegal cultivation of the opium was found. 8. Admittedly, there will be no wild growth of the opium plants, unless or until, the same has not been sown by someone. When, the land, upon which, the police has found the illegal cultivation of the opium plants has been found in the possession of applicants, in that eventuality, granting bail to the applicants would give a wrong signal to the society and it will also encourage other people to indulge in such type of activities. 9. As stated in the earlier part of the order, the legislature in his wisdom has enacted in the shape of ND&PS Act to curb the menace of drugs and psychotropic substances. Admittedly, the alleged cultivation of opium 7 was done without any license or permit. In such situation, the relief, for which, the applicants have approached this Court is not liable to be granted to them, since in the demarcation report of the Kanungo, as per the stand of the police, the land upon which the alleged cultivation of the opium was done, has been found in their cultivating possession. 10. So far as the case laws, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants i.e. Mehar Deen Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.MP(M) No. 363 of 2024, is concerned, with due respect to the law laid down in the said judgment, the same, in no way, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as, in the said case, there was no evidence on record to show that the land upon which, the illegal cultivation of opium was found was in the exclusive possession of the applicants in that case. As such, no benefit could be derived from the said case law, by the applicants. 11. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case reported in case titled “State of Haryana Vs Samarth Kumar, 2022 (3) RCR (Criminal) 991”, has also deprecated the grant of anticipatory bail in such type of 8 cases. The relevant paras No. 8 & 9 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- “8. In cases of this nature, the Respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. 9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondents.” 12. In view of the above legal proposition and in view of the discussions, made hereinabove, the applicants are not able to make out a case, in their favour, for any direction to be issued under Section 482 of the BNSS. 13. Consequently, the present bail applications are dismissed. 14. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as, these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application. 15. Copy of this order be placed in the connected case file i.e. CrMP(M) No.1661 of 2025. (Virender Singh) July 31, 2025 Judge (Pramod Kumar)