2025:HHC:31482 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1992 of 2025 Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Vishwajeet Mandal ...…. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Parikshit Rathour, 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 F.I.R. No.52 of 2025, dated 22.05.2025, registered at Police Station Manpura, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. It has been asserted that the police received a secret information on 22.05.2025 that the petitioner is selling charas 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 and prohibited medicines in his Clinic. The police searched the petitioner’s clinic and recovered 859 grams of charas. The police arrested the petitioner and Mahinder Singh. The investigation is complete. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The quantity of charasstated to be possessed by the accused is an intermediate quantity, 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. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.05.2025. They received a secret informant that the accused was selling charas and psychotropic substances in his Clinic. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Additional Superintendent of Police Baddi. The police associated the Drugs Inspector and two independent witnesses and went to the Clinic of the accused. The police searched the Clinic of the accused in the presence of witnesses and recovered ₹425/-, a polythene packet containing 859 grams of charas and an electronic weighing scale. The Drugs Inspector also found Allopathic drugs in the Clinic. The accused could not produce any documents to keep the drugs. The police seized the charas, and 3 the Drug Inspector seized the drugs. The charas was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, H.P. and was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The accused revealed the name of Mahinder Singh, and his involvement was confirmed by the call detail records. No other case was registered against the petitioner. The police filed the chargesheet against the petitioner on 14.07.2025, and the matter was listed for the consideration of charge on 02.09.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The quantity of charas stated to be recovered from the petitioner’s Clinic was intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and he should be afforded a chance to reform himself. Hence, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner had kept 859 grams of charas in his Clinic, which is a huge quantity. Such a quantity could not have been meant for personal consumption. The narcotics are adversely affecting the younger generation. 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: - “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 5 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. 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 combat 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 found in possession of 859 grams of charas, allopathic drugs, and currency notes worth ₹425/-; therefore, prima facie, the petitioner was involved in the commission of an 6 offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i)(B) of the NDPS Act. The status report specifically mentions that the accused had no criminal antecedents. There is a force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner deserves a chance to reform himself. Detaining the petitioner in custody will bring him into contact with hardened criminals, and the chances of his reformation would become bleak. 12 It was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. He would intimidate the witnesses, and his release would compromise the fair trial. The apprehension expressed by the State can be removed by imposing stringent conditions, and the State would be free to approach the Court in case of violation of any condition imposed by the Court. 13. Consequently, 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: - 7 (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (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. 14. 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. 15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Kishanpura at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 8 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th September 2025. (ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: RAVINDER KUMAR Date: 2025-09-15 13:23:45