2025:HHC:28902 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1858 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.8.2025 Date of Decision: 27.8.2025. Dharu 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 : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 25.1.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’), at Police Station, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:28902 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 at Sukhdain Bain. Its driver fled towards the Jungle. Sobhi Ram was found to be the owner of the vehicle, who revealed that he had sold it to Harinder Kumar. The police searched for Harinder and found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 parked on the roadside. The driver revealed his name as Dharu Ram (present petitioner). The person sitting beside the driver disclosed his name as Liyakat Ali, and the person sitting in the rear seat disclosed his name as Harinder Kumar. Harinder Kumar also disclosed that he had purchased the car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 from Sobhi Ram and had handed it over to Rakesh Kumar. The police checked the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331. Dharu Ram and Liyakat Ali ran away from the spot towards the jungle taking advantage of the darkness. The police recovered 2.570 kgs. of Charas from the vehicle. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. There is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner surrendered himself to the police. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3 2025:HHC:28902 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 24.1.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 44-5331. The driver stopped the vehicle after seeing the police and ran towards the jungle. The police followed him but could not apprehend him. Shobhi Ram was found to be the registered owner, who was contacted telephonically. He disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar. The location of Harinder Kumar was found between Lahad and Kunah. The police searched for him and found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C- 1969 parked on the roadside. The driver identified himself as Dharu Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Liyakat Ali, and the person sitting in the rear seat identified himself as Harinder Kumar. The Police brought him to the spot where the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 was parked. The vehicle was searched in the presence of Abdul Mazeed and Basheer Mohammad. The police were searching the vehicle when Dharu Ram and Liyakat Ali had run away from the spot. The police ran after them but could not trace them. The search was continued, and the police recovered 2.570 kgs. of charas. The police seized the charas. The police conducted the 4 2025:HHC:28902 investigation and obtained the call detail record. The record of CCTV Footage was also checked. The vehicles bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44-5331 were found to be moving together in the CCTV Footage. Rakesh Kumar had talked to Harinder Kumar and Liyakat Ali many times between 7.43 AM and 12.48 PM. Police arrested Rakesh Kumar, Harinder Kumar and Dharo Ram (petitioner). Liyakat Ali has absconded, and efforts are being made to trace him. The charge sheet was filed after the completion of the investigation. The matter is listed for checking of copies on 3.9.2025. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had absconded, and the chances of his further absconding cannot be ruled out. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in 5 2025:HHC:28902 evidence. The petitioner himself surrendered, and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner will not join the investigation in case of his release on bail is without any basis. There is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner, and his continued detention in prison is not justified. Hence, 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 escorting the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 from which a commercial quantity of cannabis was recovered. Rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case, and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. 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: - 6 2025:HHC:28902 “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: - “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 7 2025:HHC:28902 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, 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) 8 2025:HHC:28902 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. 12. The status report shows that the petitioner and Harinder, owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44- 5331, were travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 9 2025:HHC:28902 01C-1969. The police checked the call detail record and found that Rakesh Kumar, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 44-5331 was in touch with Harinder Kumar and Liyakat Ali. The status report does not show that Rakesh Kumar had ever talked to the petitioner. Thus, the status report does not connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. 13. It was submitted that Liyakat Ali and the petitioner ran away from the spot when the police were checking the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331, but this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner. This circumstance may give rise to a grave suspicion, but a suspicion, however strong it may be, admission can never take the place of proof. Therefore, this circumstance is not justified to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. 14. The status report also shows that vehicles bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44-5331 were found moving together in the CCTV Footage. However, the mere fact that the vehicles were moving together is no reason to suggest that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 was escorting the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331. 10 2025:HHC:28902 Therefore, this circumstance cannot be used for detaining the petitioner. 15. The status report does not show any sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Therefore, the first condition that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not committed the crime is satisfied. 16. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, and there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is likely to commit the crime in case of his release on bail. Therefore, the second condition laid down under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act is also satisfied. 17. In view of the above, 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. 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. 11 2025:HHC:28902 (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. 18. 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. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail, Chamba, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 12 2025:HHC:28902 21. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th August 2025 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2025.08.27 13:45:00 +0530