Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22863 (HP)

NASIB REHMAN v. STATE OF HP

CRMPM/2005/2025 · 2025-09-12

Virender Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:HHC:31335 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2005 of 2025 Reserved on : 10.9.2025 Decided on : 12.9.2025 Nasib Rehman …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional A.G. with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Nasib Rehman has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 20 of 2025, dated 20.4.2025, registered under Sections 2 2025:HHC:31335 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS’ Act), with Police Station, Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P. 2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. According to the applicant, investigation in the present case, is almost complete and nothing is to be recovered, from the possession of the applicant. 4. The applicant has further pleaded that he is having deep roots in the society and he is ready to abide by any condition, imposed by this Court, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 5. According to the applicant, apart from the present case, the following cases have been registered against him: “i) FIR No. 47 of 2010, dated 18.3.2010, under Sections 18-61-85 of NDPS Act; 3 2025:HHC:31335 ii) FIR No. 6 of 2011, dated 3.1.2011, under Sections 25-54-59 of the Arms Act; iii) FIR No. 5 of 2011, dated 7.1.2011, under Sections 29-61-85 of NDPS Act’ iv) FIR No. 62 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, under Sections 21-61- 85 of the NDPS Act; v) FIR No. 52 of 2022, dated 5.7.2022, under Sections 22-61-85 of the NDPS Act; and vi) FIR No. 54 of 2022, dated 5.7.2022, under Sections 22-61-85 of the NDPS Act. 6. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that, on the ground of parity, also, the applicant is entitled to the relief of bail. 8. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 8.1. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 19.4.2025, I.O., H.C.Deepak Kumar No. 39, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling/picketing duty, in 4 2025:HHC:31335 the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ramshehar. At about 10:55 p.m., the I.O., alongwith other police officials, was present at Ramshahar-Nalagarh road and when they reached near CHC Ram Shehar, then, he noticed a black coloured Scorpio bearing registration No. PB12Q-6205, being driven by its driver, which was signalled to stop, upon which, the driver has stopped the vehicle. On inquiry, driver disclosed his name as Mohammaddeen, S/o Malook Ali, and the person sitting by his side disclosed his name as Rajul Kishan, S/o Jai Kishan. The person sitting behind the driver seat, on inquiry, disclosed his name as Nasib Rehman (applicant). All the three occupants of the vehicle were inquired about their movement in the odd hours of the night. However, none of them could give satisfactory answer. 8.2 Hence, the driver of the vehicle was directed to show the requisite documents and driving license, but, he could not produce the requisite documents, nor he could produce the driving license. As such, 5 2025:HHC:31335 the vehicle was detained and independent witness Rakesh Kumar was requested to come to the spot. 8.3 Thereafter, in the presence of the independent witnesses, said vehicle was searched. Underneath the cover of driver seat, a transparent polythene, containing two transparent packets were found, which, on opening, were found to be containing a light brown coloured granule shaped substance, which, on the basis of experience, was found to be chitta. All the three occupants of the vehicle also confirmed the same to be chitta. On weighment, the Chitta/Heroin was found to be 32.74 grams. Registration Certificate was also found from the dash board of the vehicle and the same was found to have been registered in the name of Devender Singh. Other codal formalities were completed. 8.4 During personal search of accused Naseeb rehman (applicant), one foil paper, one lighter, half burnt currency notes, alongwith currency notes worth Rs.6100/- were found, which were taken into 6 2025:HHC:31335 possession. After registration of the case, all the three accused persons were arrested. 8.5 On 22.4.2025, the case property was produced before the Court of learned ACJM, Nalagarh, where proceedings, under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, were conducted. During police remand, applicant Nasib Rehman and accused Mohammaddeen disclosed that chitta was purchased from one Anif. The case property was thereafter sent to SFSL, Junga, from where, positive report has been received. 8.6 Apart from the present case, following cases are stated to have been registered against the applicant: “i) FIR No. 47 of 2010, dated 18.3.2010, under Sections 18-61- 85 of NDPS Act; ii) FIR No. 62 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, under Sections 21-61- 85 of the NDPS Act; iii) FIR No. 52 of 2022, dated 5.7.2022, under Sections 22-61-85 of the NDPS Act; and iv) FIR No. 54 of 2022, dated 5.7.2022, under Sections 22-61-85 of the NDPS Act. 7 2025:HHC:31335 Out of the aforesaid cases, in two cases, arising out of FIR Nos. 47 of 2010, dated 18.3.2010 and 62 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, the applicant has been convicted, whereas two cases are pending adjudication, before the competent Courts of law. 9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 10. The applicant, in the bail application, has mentioned the fact that six cases have been registered against him, by pleading that applicant has previously been involved in these cases. However, as per the status report, the applicant has been convicted in case FIR No. 47 of 2010, dated 18.3.2010, registered under Sections 18-61-85 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Badali Ala Sindh Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Apart from this, the applicant has been convicted in case FIR No. 62 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, registered under Sections 8 2025:HHC:31335 21-61-85 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Sindh Bhagwantpura, Roopnagar Punjab, and has been sentenced to undergo three years’ imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as fine. The previous conviction is sufficient to take away the presumption of innocence, from the applicant, at this stage. 11. Moreover, whenever a person approaches the Court, seeking bail, he is bound to disclose all the material facts, especially his criminal history. The manner in which, details of the criminal history have been given in para-5 of the application, clearly demonstrates the feeble attempt of the applicant to conceal the material fact, with regard to conviction, having been inflicted upon him, in two cases, as referred to above, especially conviction, which has recently been inflicted upon him, on 12.2.2024. This fact is sufficient to decline the relief to the applicant. The cases, which have been registered against the applicant, and in which, he has been convicted, were registered under the provisions of NDPS Act. 9 2025:HHC:31335 12. Considering these facts, even on the ground of parity, the applicant is not entitled for relief of bail, as claimed in the application. 13. In view of above, the present application is dismissed. 14. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application. (Virender Singh) Judge September 12, 2025 Kalpana