2025:HHC:33387 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2092 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Date of Decision: 25.9.2025. Rishi 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 : M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.. 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. 65 of 2025, dated 04.06.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS’) at Police Station BSL Colony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33387 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, 845 grams of ‘Charas’ were recovered from the petitioner. The allegations in the F.I.R. are false. The petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the commission of crime. He has no criminal history. He has roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He is the only earning member of the family, and his detention is causing hardship to his family members. He 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 Nakkabandi duty on 04.06.2025. They checked the bus bearing registration No. PB07CA-5471 at about 10:15 a.m. The petitioner was sitting on seat No. 34. He got frightened after seeing the police and tried to conceal a kit bag kept near his left leg. The police associated the driver and conductor of the bus, checked the bag, recovered 845 grams of Charas, seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per the report, it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. F.I.R. No. 47 of 2022, dated 20.02.2022, is registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bilaspur, H.P. for the commission of 3 2025:HHC:33387 an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, which is pending disposal before the Court. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence, intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution’s evidence if released on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The quantity of charas stated to have been found in possession of the petitioner is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Chamba, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2025:HHC:33387 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 845 grams of charas, which is a huge quantity and could not have been meant for self-consumption. The narcotics are adversely affecting the young generation, and their possession should not be viewed lightly. The petitioner has a criminal history, and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. 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 Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) 5 2025:HHC:33387 “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are 6 2025:HHC:33387 peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application 7 2025:HHC:33387 cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 8 2025:HHC:33387 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. As per the status report, the petitioner was trying to conceal the kit bag after seeking the police party. The police searched the bag and recovered 845 grams of charas in the 9 2025:HHC:33387 presence of the driver and conductor of the bus. These allegations, prima facie, show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of crime. 11. It was asserted in para 5(B) of the petition that the petitioner has no criminal history. This is factually incorrect because the status report shows that F.I.R. No. 47 of 2022, dated 20.02.2022, is registered against the petitioner, which is pending disposal before the Court. It was laid down by this Court in Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. 2020 (1) Shim. L.C. 476 that the petitioner must mention all the pending FIRs and all the criminal trials where the sentence provided is 7 years or more. It was observed: “15. Given the above, it is obligatory that in every bail petition, the petitioner must mention all pending FIRs and pending criminal trials, where the sentence provided is seven years or more. Furthermore, the petitioner must specify details of all cases where he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. 16. In addition to the above, in every bail petition filed in any Court within the jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the State/Respondent(s) shall explicitly mention in the status report the criminal history. In bail petitions where there is no pleading about the criminal history, then the State/Respondent(s) shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Court about the non-mentioning of the criminal history. In such a situation, it shall be for the 10 2025:HHC:33387 concerned Court to take a call, if it so desires, depending upon the facts of each case.” 12. In the present case, the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act is punishable with imprisonment of 20 years; therefore, it was necessary to mention the FIR in the bail petition as per the direction of this Court. 13. It was laid down by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Deen Mohd. Vs State of Haryana, CRM- M-26229 (O&M) decided on 10.06.2022 that when the petitioner conceals the material fact from the Court, he cannot be held entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court. It was observed:- “… The law is well settled that where a process is ‘ex debito Justitiae’, the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides. Apex Court in the case of Hari Narain vs. Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C.1558 approved of the said principle and the same was followed in the case of Welcome Hotel vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 575, where it was held that a party which has misled the Court is not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court.” 14. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail because of his conduct. 11 2025:HHC:33387 15. It was submitted that the quantity of charas stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is intermediate, and he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. This submission is not acceptable. 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. It cannot be guaranteed that there will be re-indulgence by the petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released on bail.” 12 2025:HHC:33387 16. Similarly, it was held in Bunty Yadav v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 4996, that the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right even if the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply. 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.” 17. In the present case, the police recovered 845 grams of charas, which is a huge quantity. There is a force in the submission of learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State that it could not have been meant for self- consumption. Charas adversely affects the young generation, and a person repeatedly caught dealing with drugs cannot be released on bail. 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 13 2025:HHC:33387 that the 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. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of emptiness. 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 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”. 14 2025:HHC:33387 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, (2012) 9 SCC 446: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172.) 18. In the present case, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and the apprehension that he would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail cannot be ruled out. 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: 15 2025:HHC:33387 “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.” 19. 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, 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. 20. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail because of his criminal antecedents as well. 21. No other point was urged. 22. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 16 2025:HHC:33387 23. 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 25th September, 2025 (ravinder)