2025:HHC:29404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1895 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.8.2025 Date of Decision: 30.08.2025. Khekh Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s Yadvender Gupta and B.S. Ahuja, Advocates. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Achhar Singh, Incharge, PP City, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 60 of 2025, dated 14.3.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29404 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, 6.52 grams of heroin and 6.88 grams of charas were recovered from the main accused. The petitioner was arrayed under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act. The investigation is complete. As per the prosecution, a polythene containing traces of heroin was recovered from the petitioner’s house, which was planted by the police. The petitioner was badly beaten by the Kullu police and was medically examined in the District Hospital, Kullu. An inquiry was also ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, into the matter. The main accused, Bhawan Sood, never named the petitioner as his accomplice; rather, he claimed that he had purchased the drugs from a Nepali. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner’s possession was small, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner was involved in eleven cases, out of which eight cases are under the ND&PS Act, two cases are under the Forest Act, and one case is under 174A of IPC. He has been acquitted in three cases. A direction was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu, to conduct an inquiry and submit the report in an appeal filed by the petitioner. The 3 2025:HHC:29404 petitioner was falsely implicated by the same police officer against whom an inquiry was conducted. Compliance with Sections 41 and 42 of the ND&PS Act was not made. The statement made by the co-accused is not admissible. 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 14.3.2025. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-34E-4261 came to the spot at about 3.10 PM. The rider was not wearing a helmet. The police signalled him to stop, but he tried to turn and sped away. The police apprehended him and searched him in the presence of two independent witnesses. The police recovered 6.88 grams of charas and 6.52 grams of heroin. The rider identified himself as Bhawan Sood. The police arrested him and seized the charas and heroin. He initially revealed that charas and heroin were purchased from a Nepali, but subsequently named the petitioner as the seller. As per the report of analysis, the heroin was confirmed to be a sample of diacetylmorphine (Heroin) and the charas was confirmed to be the extract of cannabis. The police obtained the call detail record and the bank 4 2025:HHC:29404 account statement. The petitioner and Bhawan Sood (co- accused) had talked to each other 11 times from 1.1.2025 to 14.3.2025. Bhawan Sood paid ₹69,500/- to the petitioner on different dates. The police searched the petitioner’s house on 10.4.2024 and recovered the electronic weighing machine and a polythene bag containing some brown substance. The police seized them. These were sent to SFSL, Junga and as per the report, traces of diacetylmorphine (heroin) were found in the transparent poly packet. Eight FIRs were registered against the petitioner under the ND&PS Act, 02 FIR were registered under the Forest Act, and 01 FIR was registered under Section 174-A of IPC. The petitioner was convicted in FIR Nos. 120 of 2011 and 85/15 and was acquitted in FIR No. 601 of 2008, 395 of 2009, 6 of 2013 and 110 of 2018. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 9.5.2025. The matter is now listed before the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, on 9.9.2025 for consideration on charge. 4. I have heard M/s Yadvender Gupta and B.S. Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5 2025:HHC:29404 5. Mr. Yadvender Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. A direction was issued by the Supreme Court in Khekh Ram v. State of H.P. 2018(1) SCC 202 to conduct the inquiry. The police targeted the petitioner after the submission of the inquiry report. He was beaten, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, noticed this fact on 11.4.2025. The petitioner was not named by the co-accused Bhawan Sood, who had mentioned that heroin and charas were purchased by him from a Nepali citizen. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner’s possessionsis small, which is bailable. The arrest of the petitioner is not justified. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Takeo Takahashi v. State of H.P. 2003 (1) ShimLC 368 in support of his submission. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was named by the co-accused Bhawan Sood. The police searched the petitioner’s house and recovered a polythene bag containing traces of heroin. The co accused had talked to the petitioner and 6 2025:HHC:29404 transferred a huge money to him. These circumstances show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of crime. 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “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 7 2025:HHC:29404 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, 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 application for bail 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 8 2025:HHC:29404 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) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. A perusal of the status report shows that the co- accused Bhawan Sood was found in possession of 6.52 grams of heroin and 6.88 grams of charas. He named the petitioner as the supplier of the drugs. The police searched the petitioner’s house and recovered the polythene containing traces of heroin. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640: (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 412: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043, that the information given by the accused, leading to the discovery of another accused from whom forged currency notes were recovered, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was observed at page 646: - “15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information furnished by accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz, and other 9 2025:HHC:29404 accused, Anju Ali was arrested. The fact that Anju Ali was dealing with forged currency notes was not known to the knowledge of the police. The statements of both the accused have led to the discovery of the fact and arrest of the co-accused, not known to the police. They identified him, and ultimately, statements have led to unearthing the racket of the use of fake currency notes. Thus, the information furnished by the aforesaid accused persons vide information memos is clearly admissible, which has led to the identification and arrest of accused Anju Ali, and as already stated, from possession of Anju Ali's fake currency notes had been recovered. As per information furnished by the accused Mehboob and Firoz vide memos Exts. P-41 and P-42, the fact has been discovered by the police as to the involvement of the accused Anju Ali, which was not known to the knowledge of the police. The police were not aware of the accused Anju Ali, as well as the fact that he was dealing with fake currency notes, which were recovered from him. Thus, the statement of the aforesaid accused Mehboob and Firoz is clearly saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by Section 27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted in the instant case. The statement of the accused persons has led to the discovery of facts proving complicity of the other accused persons, and the entire chain of circumstances clearly makes out that the accused acted in conspiracy, as found by the trial court as well as the High Court. xxxxxxx 20. Considering the aforesaid dictums, it is apparent that there was a discovery of a fact as per the statement of Mehmood Ali and Mohd. Firoz. Co-accused was nabbed on the basis of an identification made by the accused Mehboob and Firoz. That he was dealing with fake currency notes came to the knowledge of the police through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was also made from Anju Ali. Thus, the aforesaid accused had the knowledge about co-accused Anju Ali, who was nabbed at 10 2025:HHC:29404 their instance and on the basis of their identification. These facts were not to the knowledge of the police, hence the statements of the accused persons leading to the discovery of the fact are clearly admissible as per the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which carves out an exception to the general provisions about inadmissibility of confession made under police custody contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.” 11. In the present case, the statement made by the co- accused Bhawan Sood led to the discovery of the petitioner and the fact that he was in possession of the heroin; therefore, the statement would be admissible. 12. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner was added subsequently, and the co-accused had initially named a Nepali citizen. Reference was made to the application for seeking police remand filed by the police on 11.4.2025. This application also shows that Bhawan Sood had initially named Nepali but subsequently named the petitioner as the seller. Therefore, this application does not support the plea that the co-accused had not named the petitioner. 13. The status report also shows that the petitioner and co-accused were in contact with each other. The co-accused had also transferred ₹69,500/- to the petitioner, for which no 11 2025:HHC:29404 explanation has been provided. Prima facie, these circumstances show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of crime. 14. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered the investigation in an appeal filed by the petitioner, and the police are making false cases due to this fact. This is a matter of trial; however, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not show that the persons cited as witnesses in the said judgment are also the witnesses in the present case. As per the status report, ASI Achhar Singh, HC Hemant Kumar, HHC Kishan Chand, Constable Naveen Kumar and LC Preet were part of the police party, whereas in the earlier case, Inspector SHO Sanjeev Chauhan, HHC Hari Singh and HHC Kanshi Ram were the members of the police party. Hence, the plea that the same police officials are falsely implicating the petitioner is not established by the material on record. 15. It was submitted that the police party had beaten the petitioner, and a complaint was made to the learned CJM. The photocopy of the order passed by the learned CJM shows that an injury was noticed on the petitioner’s right eye. Learned CJM ordered the inquiry because the petitioner claimed that he was 12 2025:HHC:29404 beaten by the police, whereas the police claimed that the petitioner had hit his head against the table. These rival versions were to be ascertained. An inquiry is being conducted, which would be taken to its logical conclusion, and it is premature to say that the petitioner was falsely implicated. 16. It was submitted that the quantity of heroin stated to have been found in the possession of the co-accused is less than a commercial 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 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 13 2025:HHC:29404 prohibited drug. Definitely, the drug is made available through a supply chain managed in an organised manner.” 17. 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.” 14 2025:HHC:29404 18. 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. 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.” 19. The status report shows that 11 FIRs were registered against the petitioner. Some are pending, and he was convicted in some of the FIRs. This shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. 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 15 2025:HHC:29404 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. 20. 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 her 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.” 21. 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 to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet 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 16 2025:HHC:29404 show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 22. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail, as the possibility of commission of a similar offence by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. 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 instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th August 2025 (Chander)