2025:HHC:4005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2880 of 2024 Reserved on: 24.02.2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025. Kamal ...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 Ravi Tanta and Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr HC Anil, No. 171, IO, Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, HP. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 152 of 2024, dated 8.11.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner was falsely implicated without any evidence. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected by the Investigating Agency. The quantity of contraband stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He is the sole provider of the family. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a nakka at Bharoli Teer on 7.11.2024. They saw the petitioner carrying a bag at 6.50 PM. The petitioner started running after seeing the police party. The police apprehended the petitioner and searched the carry bag in the presence of the witnesses. The police recovered 600 grams of charas from the bag. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the charas. The charas was sent to SFSL, Junga and was confirmed to be a sample of charas after analysis. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Hence the status report. 3 3. I have heard M/s Ravi Tanta and Shakti Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose and he would furnish two local sureties to remove the apprehension of the State regarding the abscondence of the accused. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 600 grams of charas which is a huge quantity. The petitioner will indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: - “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 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 herein 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 5 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 extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 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 application for bail 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 6 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 600 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity; therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. 10. The petitioner submitted that he does not have any criminal antecedent. This fact was not denied in the status report, and it was specifically mentioned that no case was found to have been registered against the petitioner. 11. The status report indicates that the petitioner is selling charas to the younger generation. However, this assertion lacks any supporting evidence. No First Information Report (FIR) has been registered against the petitioner to substantiate the claim of drug peddling. Consequently, the plea that the petitioner is a drug peddler cannot be accepted. 7 12. The petitioner is the first offender. He claimed that he is the sole provider of the family and is residing in District Shimla and working as a labourer. This was confirmed in the status report, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner was working in the orchards at Rohru as a labourer. Keeping in view the fact that no case was found to have been registered against the petitioner, he deserves a chance to reform himself. He was arrested on 7.11.2024 and cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely until the conclusion of his trial. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner can abscond in case of his release on bail. Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken to furnish two local sureties to remove this apprehension of the respondent-State. Hence, the petitioner cannot be detained in judicial custody based on the apprehension of the State. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two local sureties 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: - 8 (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 in case a charge sheet is presented against him 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 intending visit to the SHO, 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. 15. 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. 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 9 17. 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 1st March, 2025 (Chander) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.03.01 10:40:01 IST