2025:HHC:36360 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2358 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.10.2025 Date of Decision: 31.10.2025. Nitin ...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 Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 100 of 2025, dated 24.6.2025, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:36360 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 24.06.2025 at Chilgadi at about 2.00 pm. They received a secret information that two persons were standing beside their motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02EG-1821. They had kept heroin in the motorcycle, which could be recovered by their search. The police reduced the information into writing and proceeded to the spot. They found the motorcycle and two people. The police searched the motorcycle and recovered 14.81 grams of heroin. These allegations are false. The petitioner was falsely implicated, and he has nothing to do with the motorcycle. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered is less than a commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was present at Chilgadi on 24.6.2025. The police received a secret information at about 2 pm that two persons were standing near the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02EG-1821. They had concealed the heroin inside the motorcycle, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching the motorcycle. The police reduced the 3 2025:HHC:36360 information into writing and sent it to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kangra, through Constable Anil. The police went to the spot and found two people standing beside the motorcycle. One person attempted to start the motorcycle. The police apprehended both persons. They identified themselves as Harwinder Gandhi and Nitin (the present petitioner). The police searched the motorcycle in the presence of independent witnesses and recovered a polythene packet containing 14.81 grams of heroin concealed in the headlight cover of the motorcycle. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The heroin was sent to the FSL, and as per the report, it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 18.8.2025. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 30.10.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was 4 2025:HHC:36360 falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police was intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The police have filed a charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar crimes in case of his release on bail. 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 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 5 2025:HHC:36360 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elabo- rating 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 consid- ered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “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 a 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 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 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 ex- tracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) 6 2025:HHC:36360 “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 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, calls for 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 con- textual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be con- sidered 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 7 2025:HHC:36360 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.” (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 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 justi- fying 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 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 prin- ciples laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circum- stances, 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 convic- tion; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if re- leased on bail; 8 2025:HHC:36360 (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) xx 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, ob- served 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 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 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 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 offence(s) alleged against an ac- cused.” (emphasis supplied) 9 2025:HHC:36360 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 petitioner and the co-accused were standing near the motorcycle. The co-accused attempted to start the motorcycle after seeing the police. The police recovered 14.81 grams of heroin from the headlight cover of the motorcycle. These circumstances, prima facie, show the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of a crime. 11. The police recovered 14.81 grams of heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. The petitioner asserted that he does not have any criminal antecedents. The status report shows that no FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is a first offender and is entitled to reform himself. His continued detention in prison will make it difÏcult for him to reform because he would come in contact with hardened criminals, and his chance of reformation would become bleak. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence, intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence in case of his release on bail. These apprehensions can be removed by imposing conditions, and they 10 2025:HHC:36360 are not sufÏcient to detain the petitioner in custody. The police are free to apply for the cancellation of bail in case the petitioner violates the terms and conditions of the bail, but he cannot be detained in custody on the presumption that he would commit a similar offence, intimidate the witness and tamper with the evidence in case of his release on bail. 13. Consequently, 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 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 11 2025:HHC:36360 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 Jail Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai District and Open-Air Jail, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. 17. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the ofÏcial website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 31st October, 2025 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2025.10.31 11:18:47 +0530