Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 634 of 2025 Reserved on: 26.03.2025 Date of Decision: 10th April, 2025. Karan Sharma ...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. Jagmohan Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General with ASI Ravinder Singh, PS Dhalli, Shimla, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) vide FIR No. 12/2025, dated 22.01.2025, registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. As per 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) the prosecution case, the police recovered 100 grams of heroin from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. No heroin was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2025. The police have filed the chargesheet, and detaining the petitioner in custody would serve no fruitful purpose. The petitioner is a local resident and he belongs to a reputed family. He would join the investigation and not temper with the prosecution evidence. 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 was on patrolling duty on 22.01.2025 when a secret information was received at 10:00 am that the petitioner was selling heroin and in case of his search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated independent witness and searched the house of the petitioner. The police recovered a transparent plastic packet, a burnt currency note of ₹ 10/- and an electronic weighing scale kept beneath the pillow. The police checked the packet and found 100.590 grams of heroin in it. The police seized all the articles and 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) arrested the petitioner. The petitioner revealed during the inquiry that he had purchased the heroin from Gurmeet. He also disclosed the name of Shubham Sharma. As per the result of the analysis, the heroin was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine. The financial transaction was also found in the account of the petitioner and Gurmeet. The police have filed the charge sheet. An FIR No. 118/2020, dated 18.05.2020 was registered against the petitioner, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-III, Shimla; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Jagmohan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin found in the possession of the petitioner was more than a small quantity but less than a commercial quantity. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The criminal antecedents cannot be used to deny the bail to the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments in Deepak Kashyap versus State of H.P., 2025:HHC:5711 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) and Prabhakar Tiwari versus State of H.P., 2020 (1) Criminal Court Cases 722, in support of his submission. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 100 grams of heroin, which could not have been intended for self-consumption. The petitioner had previously been involved in a similar offence, and the possibility of repeating the offence while on bail cannot be ruled out; therefore, he requested that the present petition be dismissed. 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 8. This position was reiterated 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 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) 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 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 bail application 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 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) 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 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) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 100.590 grams of heroin. This is 20 times the small quantity prescribed by the Central Government. There is a force in the submission of Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General that such a huge quantity could not have been meant for self-consumption. The heroin affects the young generation adversely and the possession of 100 grams of heroin cannot be viewed lightly. 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) 12. The status report shows that FIR No. 118 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. It means that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024:HHC: 6091 and held after referring to various judgments that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of such offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 13. 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 his criminal antecedent he should not be released on bail. It was observed: “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.” 14. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019 that where the persons were involved in 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) the commission of offence 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 hardly for one and 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 no. 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 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. 15. Thus, the criminal antecedent assumes significance while considering the bail of the accused. In the present case, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner shows that he is likely to commit a crime in case of his release on bail, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail on this consideration as well. 16. The judgment of this Court in Deepak Kashyap (supra) did not discuss the various precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which deal with the relevance of the criminal antecedents and cannot be followed. Further, the quantity of heroin in Deepak Kashyap was 29.50 grams which is much less than the quantity of heroin found in the present case. 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) 17. In the case of Prabhakar Tiwari (supra), it was held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be the sole factor in denying bail. However, in the present case, the quantity of heroin found in the possession of the petitioner and the registration of the FIR under the NDPS Act indicate a possibility of the commission of the offence again if the petitioner is released on bail. Consequently, the criminal antecedents will assume importance in this case. 18. It was submitted that the police had only recovered an intermediate quantity of heroin, and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NPDS Act do not apply to the present case, thus the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. However, this submission cannot be accepted. This Court laid down in Dilbar Khan v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 2441, that a person found in possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. It was observed: - “9. No doubt the quantity of contraband in the case is intermediate and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable. Merely because the quantity of contraband recovered is less than the commercial quantity may not by itself be sufficient to grant bail. 10. The menace of drug abuse is not unknown in the society in modern times. The victims are innocent adolescents 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) besides others. Drug abuse more often than not leads to drug addiction, which ruins the lives of a substantial number of such persons. The question arises as to how young adolescents, who by and large remain in the custody of their guardians, are able to procure the prohibited drug. Definitely, the drug is made available through a supply chain managed in an organized manner.” 19. 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 law, it cannot be singly taken 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 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 definitely shall be detrimental to its interest. 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 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) the petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released on bail.” 20. Similarly, it was held in Bunty Yadav v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 4996 that even where the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 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 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 the adolescents and students has seriously eroded into the fabric of the society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation building into serious peril.” 21. Karnataka High Court took a similar view in Sri. Thaha Ummer vs Union of India Criminal Petition No.9450/2022 decided on 09-11-2022 and held that merely because Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply, a person involved in the commission of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act cannot be released on bail as a matter of right. 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10016 ) 22. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 23. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) 10th April ,2025 Judge (Saurav Pathania)