2025:HHC:29892 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1885 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.8.2025 Date of Decision: 03.9.2025. Sajan Kumar ...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. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 20 of 2025, dated 11.2.2025, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, 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 2025:HHC:29892 2. It has been asserted that, as per the case of the prosecution, the police party found the petitioner sitting on a parapet on 11.2.2025. He threw something after seeing the police and started walking briskly towards the crematorium. The police apprehended the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses, retrieved the article he had thrown, and recovered 6.96 grams of heroin. The investigation is complete. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. FIR No. 85 of 2022 and FIR No. 20 of 2023 were registered against the petitioner. Rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. 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 11.2.2025. The petitioner was found sitting on the parapet at 4.10 PM. He threw something and started walking briskly towards the crematorium after seeing the police. The police apprehended the petitioner based on suspicion. The petitioner identified himself as Sajan Kumar. The police checked the article thrown by the petitioner in the presence of Kuldeep Kumar and Ashok Kumar and recovered a polythene packet containing 6.96 grams 3 2025:HHC:29892 of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. FIR Nos. 85 of 2022, 167 of 2020 and 20 of 2023 have been registered against the petitioner. The heroin was sent to SFSL, Junga for analysis and was confirmed to be diacetylmorphine (heroin). The police filed a charge sheet on 1.4.2025, which is pending before the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, Kangra, at Dharamshala and the matter is listed for consideration of charge on 18.9.2025. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 6.96 grams of heroin, which is less than a commercial quantity. Rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The police have filed the charge 4 2025:HHC:29892 sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. According to the status report, six FIRs have been registered against the petitioner out of which in one FIR he has been acquitted, two FIRs were compromised and three FIRs are pending adjudication, which are insufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, 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. The Court should not show undue sympathy to the petitioner who is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, especially when the possibility of committing a similar offence in case of his release on bail cannot be ruled out. 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 5 2025:HHC:29892 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. 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 6 2025:HHC:29892 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 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, 7 2025:HHC:29892 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 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. 8 2025:HHC:29892 12. The status report shows that the petitioner threw something after seeing the police and tried to escape by walking briskly. However, the police apprehended him and checked the article in the presence of independent witnesses. The police recovered 6.96 grams of heroin; therefore, prima facie, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. 13. It was submitted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner was found to be in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin; hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case, 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., 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, 9 2025:HHC:29892 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. 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. 10 2025:HHC:29892 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. 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. The petition mentions that two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, whereas status report shows that three FIRs are pending against him. 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 11 2025:HHC:29892 of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. Bail should not be generally granted to an accused with criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 17. 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 his 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.” 18. 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, 12 2025:HHC:29892 more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 19. It was submitted that only two FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, which are not sufficient to deny bail to him. This submission is only stated to be rejected. Once it is established that the accused has a criminal record, the possibility of committing the crime while on bail cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the number of FIRs is not a determinative factor when considering the bail in subsequent FIR. The Court has to balance the interests of society and the liberty of the person, and where the act of the accused jeopardises the safety of society, he cannot be released on bail. 20. No other point was urged. 21. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 22. 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 3rd September, 2025 (Chander)