( 2025:HHC:42659 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2705 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025. Liyakat Ali ...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 Imran Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 06 of 2025, dated 25.01.2025, registered at Police Station, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is an agriculturist. He is falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR even 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2025:HHC:42659 though he has nothing to do with it. The petitioner has no criminal history. He is the sole earner of the family. He has a good reputation in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 24.1.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331. The driver stopped the vehicle after seeing the police and ran towards the jungle. The police followed him but could not apprehend him. Shobhi Ram was found to be the registered owner, who was contacted telephonically. He disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar. The location of Harinder Kumar was found between Lahad and Kunah. The police searched for him and found a vehicle bearing registration No HP-01C-1969 parked on the roadside. The driver identified himself as Dharu Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Liyakat Ali, and the person sitting in the rear seat identified himself as Harinder Kumar. The police brought them to the spot where the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 was parked. The vehicle was searched in the presence of Abdul Mazeed and Basheer Mohammad. The police 3( 2025:HHC:42659 were searching the vehicle when Dharu Ram and Liyakat Ali ran away from the spot. The police ran after them but could not catch them. The search was continued, and the police recovered 2.570 kgs of charas. The police seized the charas. The police conducted the investigation and obtained the call detail record. The record of CCTV Footage was also checked. The vehicles bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44- 5331 were found moving together in the CCTV footage. Rakesh Kumar had talked to Harinder Kumar and Liyakat Ali many times between 7.43 AM and 12.48 PM. Police arrested Rakesh Kumar, Harinder Kumar and Dharo Ram. The petitioner absconded after the recovery and efforts are being made to trace him. Non- bailable warrants of arrest were issued by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 24.01.2025. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. The petitioner is involved in the transportation of a commercial quantity of charas. The investigation is at a preliminary stage. The petitioner is to be interrogated for ascertaining the involvement of other persons; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4( 2025:HHC:42659 5. Mr Imran Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is being falsely implicated on the basis of a statement made by the co-accused, which is not legally admissible. The court has already released Harinder and Rakesh Kumar on bail in Cr.MP(M) No.2316 of 2025, decided on 27.10.2025 and Cr.MP (M) No.2328 of 2025 decided on 13.11.2025, respectively. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner abetted the transportation of a commercial quantity of charas, and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner absconded from the spot, and non-bailable warrants have been issued to secure his presence. The petitioner is to be interrogated to determine the role of other persons in the transportation of the charas; 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. 5( 2025:HHC:42659 8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. It was observed: “69. Ordinarily, an arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre- arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice, and other factors, to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes with the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 9. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its 6( 2025:HHC:42659 grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent, as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 10. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed: “21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 7( 2025:HHC:42659 11. It was held in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 that pre-arrest bail can be granted in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the view that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, and the presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant pre-arrest bail. It was observed at page 501: “21. The parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail, and there is no frivolity in the prosecution. 22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563], wherein this Court expressed thus: (SCC p. 465, para 34) “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are 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/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words 8( 2025:HHC:42659 “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy 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. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original and supplied) 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations that the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over-solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 12. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner is being involved based on the statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC (1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered this judgment in Union of India vs Khaliludeen 2022 Supreme SC 1247 and denied bail to the accused, who was named by the co-accused. It was observed: - “8. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded by Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain, recorded under Section 67 of the act, has also named his owner Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact 9( 2025:HHC:42659 that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 have been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 69, the rigour of law laid down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail. 9. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith”. 14. This position was reiterated in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein it was held: “11. The information revealed by the above two accused persons indicated that both of them knew the respondent-accused and that they had connived with him to transport the illicit ganja, and that they were in direct contact with the respondent-accused all through his mobile number. The facts as unfurled from the complaint/ FIR and the statements of the above two accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reveal that the respondent-accused is the kingpin and the organiser of the illicit trade in ganja xxxx 17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail; rather, his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular 10( 2025:HHC:42659 offender. In the absence of a recording of such satisfaction by the court, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent- accused on bail. 15. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, that the accused cannot be released on pre-arrest bail relying upon the judgment in Tofan Singh (supra). It was observed: “4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused, Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. xxxxx 8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after the conclusion of the trial. 9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. These judgments were followed by this Court in Rajesh Kumar v. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 458 of 2025, decided on 25.3.2025, and it was held that the pre-arrest bail can be denied to a person named by the co-accused to enable the police to interrogate the petitioner. An SLP No. 55547 of 2025 titled Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. against this order 11( 2025:HHC:42659 was withdrawn on 21.4.2025. It was held by this Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of HP 2025:HHC:20446 that a person named by the co-accused is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. This order was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of HP, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9629/2025 decided on 10.07.2025. 17. Thus, the submission that the statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible and the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail cannot be accepted. 18. The status report shows that the police stopped the car bearing registration No. HP44-5331. The driver ran away from the spot. The police traced Shobhi Ram, who identified Harinder as the owner. The police found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP01C-1969, however, Dharu Ram and the petitioner Liyakat Ali ran away, taking advantage of the darkness. The police could not trace the petitioner and Dharu Ram. The petitioner has absconded. The petitioner was found to be in touch with the co-accused. The police checked the CCTV Footage and found that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 44-5331 was following the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 01C-1969. The fact that the petitioner had absconded and 12( 2025:HHC:42659 thereafter could not be apprehended, and the petitioner being in conversation with the co-accused, prima facie, provides sufficient material to further investigate the petitioner. 19. The police asserted in the status report that the petitioner is to be interrogated to ascertain the involvement of other persons. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed: - “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring much useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender” 13( 2025:HHC:42659 20. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: - “13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must also be kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.” 21. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed: “83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information, and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 22. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) 9792/2025, decided on 07.11.2025, that there is a 14( 2025:HHC:42659 concerning increase in drug abuse amongst the youth. It was observed:- 8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty-first century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking and addiction have become pervasive. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in its 2025 World Drug Report that “As at 2023, some 316 million people worldwide had used drugs in the past year, representing an increase over the past decade that outpaces population growth, which indicates a higher prevalence of drug use.” 9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug abuse among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects individuals, families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of health, including physical, social, political, and cultural foundations, and mental well-being. (See: “Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S, Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P. The lingering menace of drug abuse among the Indian youth–it’s time for action. Indian J Community Med 2025;50:S9-12, published on 17th April, 2025”) 10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear dilemma between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically or sacrificing its most valuable resource, i.e. its young people. The extent of menace of drug abuse has also been highlighted by this Court in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, (2025) 5 SCC 155, wherein this Court has observed as under: “9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country, with the Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of the drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders (“SUD”) and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences 15( 2025:HHC:42659 leave a generational Page 75 of 84 imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such a menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family.” 23. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, it is not a fit case where the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail can be exercised. 24. Consequently, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 25. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge _ 09 December, 2025 (meera)