2025:HHC:31749 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1970 of 2025 Reserved on: 9.9.2025 Date of Decision: 16.9.2025. Pawan ...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. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 120 of 2025, dated 30.4.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Una, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the NDPS Act’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:31749 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution’s case, the police party received a secret information that Pawan Kumar and Balbir Singh were transporting charas in a white Innova bearing registration No. HP-24B-5466. The police laid a naka at Lower Basoli and searched the vehicle. 789 grams of charas were recovered during the search. FIR No. 19 of 2017 is pending against the petitioner, and he was convicted in FIR No. 64 of 2008. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 30.4.2025. Hence, the status report. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 30.4.2025. Secret information was received at 7.15 AM. Pawan Kumar (petitioner) and Balbir Singh were transporting charas in their vehicle bearing registration No. HP-24B-5466. The police reduced the information into writing and set up a naka at Lower Basoli. The police searched the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Pawan, and the passenger identified himself as Balbir. The police searched the vehicle in the presence of an independent witness and recovered a wooden box kept near the hand brake. The police checked the box and recovered 789 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the 3 2025:HHC:31749 petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 64 of 2008, and FIR No. 19 of 2017 is pending against him. The charas was sent to FSL, and it was found to be a sample of charas and an extract of cannabis after the analysis. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 27.6.2025; hence the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The quantity of charas stated to have been recovered from the petitioner’s possession is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the quantity of charas 4 2025:HHC:31749 found in possession of the petitioner was huge and could not have been meant for personal consumption. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was 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 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 5 2025:HHC:31749 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts against the superficial examination of the bail consideration in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, and it was observed at page 177: “18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to com- bat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner was driving the vehicle from which a wooden box containing 789 grams of charas was recovered; therefore, the petitioner is, prima facie, involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. It 6 2025:HHC:31749 was submitted that the quantity of charas stated to have been found in possession of the petitioner is less than a commercial quantity, and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. 12. 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 the 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. 7 2025:HHC:31749 It cannot be guaranteed that there will be re-indulgence by the petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released on bail.” 13. 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.” 14. The status report shows that the petitioner was convicted in one FIR, and another FIR is pending against him. 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 8 2025:HHC:31749 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. 15. 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, she 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.” 16. 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 9 2025:HHC:31749 and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion, the High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 17. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 that liberty of a person has to be balanced with peace and harmony in society. Liberty cannot be elevated to such a high pedestal as would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. It was observed at page 384 : “65. We are absolutely conscious that the liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for the deprivation of the liberty of a person has an immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law, an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. Individual liberty is restricted by larger social interests, and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society, an individual is expected to live with dignity, having respect for the law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated, and such regulations, which are the 10 2025:HHC:31749 source of law, subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for the protection of human rights and the security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interests. That is why Edmond Burke, while discussing about liberty, opined, “it is regulated freedom”. 66. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude, but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society, the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing, J. Oerter stated: “Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law.” 67. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one, and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti- collective act. (See: Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172].) 18. There is a force in the submission of Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State 11 2025:HHC:31749 that 789 grams of charas could not have been meant for self- consumption. Charas is adversely affecting society, and its possession cannot be viewed lightly. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this consideration. 19. No other point was urged. 20. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 21. 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 16th September, 2025 (Chander)