2025:HHC:36359 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2344 of 2025 Reserved on: 17.10.2025 Date of Decision: 31.10.2025. Dharampal ...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 Sangram Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has &led the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 200/2025, dated 13.06.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an o1ence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on a patrolling duty on 13th June 2025. They received a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:36359 secret information at about 10:40 PM that a person standing at the exit gate of the Nalagarh HRTC Bus stand was selling opium. A huge quantity of opium could be recovered by his search. The Police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Sub Divisional Police O>cer (SDPO), Nalagarh. The police associated two independent witnesses and went to the spot where they found the petitioner. He identi&ed himself as Dharmpal (the present petitioner). The police searched the bag being carried by the petitioner and recovered opium from it. The allegations against the petitioner are false. He is innocent, and no recovery was e1ected from him. The petitioner is a &rst-time o1ender. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by &ling a status report asserting that the police were on a patrolling duty on 12th June 2025. They received a secret information at about 10:40 pm that a person carrying a black bag was standing near the exit gate of the HRTC bus stand. He had concealed opium in the bag, and a huge quantity of opium could be recovered by his search. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to SDPO, Nalagarh. 3 2025:HHC:36359 The police associated Tara Singh and Khubraj and went to the exit gate where the petitioner was found. He identi&ed himself as Dharampal. The police checked the petitioner’s bag and recovered a polythene packet containing 1.015 kgs of opium. The police seized the opium and arrested the petitioner. Samples of opium were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and they were con&rmed to be samples of opium. The matter is listed before the learned Special Judge Nalagarh for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 4th November 2025. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He would indulge in the sale of opium if released on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Sangram Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Sangram Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have completed the investigation and &led the charge sheet. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a &rst o1ender, and he deserves a chance to reform himself. Therefore, 4 2025:HHC:36359 he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a huge quantity of opium, which could not have been meant for self-consumption. The narcotics are adversely a1ecting society, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 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 elaborat- ing 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:36359 “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also perti- nent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is con&rmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant juris- diction 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 %nd whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious o&ences while on bail. In regard to habitu- als, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to in'ict further crimes on the members of society. Bail dis- cretion, 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 ex- tracted 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 cir- cumstances 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 peculiar to the ac- 6 2025:HHC:36359 cused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the wit- nesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the pub- lic 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 judi- cious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Need- less 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 mat- ter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the o&ence 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, how- ever, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (em- phasis 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 can- not undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an 7 2025:HHC:36359 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 su1er from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with re- gard 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 reject- ing 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 princi- ples 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 applica- tion for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the o&ence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of convic- tion; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or 'eeing, if re- leased on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the o&ence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being in- 'uenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 8 2025:HHC:36359 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of ap- plication of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the ac- cused 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 in- dividual is an invaluable right, at the same time while con- sidering 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 vexa- tious 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 sup- ported by reasons and must be arrived at after having re- gard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the na- ture of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the o&ence(s) alleged against an ac- cused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the police recovered 1.015 kgs of opium from the bag being carried by the petitioner. 9 2025:HHC:36359 Therefore, prima facie, there is su>cient material against the petitioner to connect him to the commission of the crime. 11. The petitioner asserted that he has no criminal antecedents, and this was not stated to be incorrect in the status report &led by the police; rather, it was stated that no other FIR was registered against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is a &rst o1ender, and he has a chance to reform himself. In case of his continued detention, he would come in contact with hardened criminals, and the chances of his reformation would become bleak. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner would indulge in the sale of opium to the college students, and he should not be released on bail. This submission will not help the prosecution. The status report shows that no other FIR was registered against the petitioner. This does not support the prosecution’s version that the petitioner is a drug peddler. It is di>cult to believe that no FIR would have been registered against the drug peddler. In any case, this apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and it is not su>cient to deny bail to the petitioner. 10 2025:HHC:36359 13. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses, and he should not be released on bail. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions, and it is not su>cient to deny bail to the petitioner. 14. The police have &led the charge sheet, which means that the custody of the petitioner is not required. The status report also does not mention any reason for the custody of the petitioner. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 15. 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 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: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he inPuence 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 11 2025:HHC:36359 (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 &ve days from the date of the change. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to &le a petition for cancellation of the bail. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail Kishanpura at Nalagarh and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. 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 31st October, 2025. (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2025.10.31 11:19:41 +0530