2025:HHC:28731 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1763 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.8.2025 Date of Decision: 26.8.2025. Shubham Dhani ...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. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 25 of 2025, dated 3.4.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 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 2025:HHC:28731 2. It has been asserted that, as per the case of the prosecution, 6.850 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner, which is an intermediate quantity. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. FIR No. 23 of 2025, dated 6.2.2025, was registered against the petitioner in Police Station, West Shimla, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner is aged 28 years and has completed his degree in Hotel Management. He has a bright future, and his continued detention will spoil his future. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, 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 patrolling duty on 2.4.2025. The accused was found going towards Lakkar Bazar at about 10.55 PM, near Snow View Park. The petitioner went towards the parking after seeing the police. He took out something from his left pocket and threw it towards the left side of the road. The police became suspicious and apprehended the petitioner. He identified himself as Shubham Dhanni. The police 3 2025:HHC:28731 checked the article thrown by the petitioner and recovered 6.85 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. FIR No. 23/25, dated 6.2.2025, was registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Boileauganj, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner is a habitual offender, and he would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The police had recovered 6.850 grams of heroin as per the prosecution’s case. The rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner has been in custody since 3.4.2025. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2025:HHC:28731 6. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier. He is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Heroin is adversely affecting the young generation, and its possession should not be viewed lightly. 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 5 2025:HHC:28731 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 empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any 6 2025:HHC:28731 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:28731 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. A similar view was taken in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The status report shows that the petitioner was found coming towards the police party, and he threw something after seeing the police. The police picked up the article and recovered 6.850 grams of heroin. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner was found in possession of 6.850 grams of heroin. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin, and he 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., 8 2025:HHC:28731 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 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.” 14. 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. 9 2025:HHC:28731 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.” 15. 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 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. 10 2025:HHC:28731 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.” 16. It is undisputed that an FIR No. 23 of 2025 has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. Hence, the submission that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of releasing him on bail has to be accepted as correct. 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. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 17. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail. This submission is only stated to be rejected. The FIR was registered on 3.4.2025. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 31.5.2025, and the matter is now listed for consideration on the charge on 2.9.2025. 11 2025:HHC:28731 Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sandeep Bahskhi v. State of H.P. 2024:HHC:14368 and Sunil Kumar alias Sonu Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:27874 to submit that long incarceration would justify the grant of bail. There can be no dispute with this proposition of law; however, in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 3.4.2025. The trial is at its initial stage, and it cannot be said that there is any long incarceration that would justify his release on bail. 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 20. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th August 2025 (Chander)