2025:HHC:11092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 655 of 2025 Decided on: 25.05.2025 Ashwani Kumar. .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this bail petition, the petitioner has prayed for his enlargement on bail, in FIR No.123 of 2021, dated 23.10.2021, registered under Sections 21-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS’) Act, at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Status report has been filed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:11092 3. The petitioner had earlier also approached this Court by way of Cr.MP(M) No. 2806 of 2024, which was rejected by the Court on 23.12.2024, by passing a reasoned order. Relevant portion of that order is being quoted hereinbelow:- “4. Status report has been filed, which is perused and ordered to be taken on record. On the strength of the contents thereof, learned Additional Advocate General submits that no mercy can be shown to the petition as he is a habitual offender and besides this, there were 13 other FIRs registered against the accused, including three under the provisions of the ND&PS Act, 7 FIRs being registered under the Excise Act and the petitioner has in fact been convicted in more than one trial, which were conducted against him. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the status report, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be ordered to be released on bail in this case. It could not be disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner that besides this FIR, earlier 13 FIRs have been registered against the accused. This includes three FIRs under the ND&PS Act. The petitioner was convicted in FIR 3 2025:HHC:11092 No. 47 of 2014, registered against him under Sections 414 and 411 of IPC & Sections 21, 22 and 61 of the ND&PS Act for a period of 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs.1.00 Lac on 11.03.2015. The petitioner has also been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 61-1-14 of the Excise Act in FIR No. 88 of 2012, for a period of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 2.00 Lac. He has also been convicted in other FIRs registered against him, details whereof are provided in the status report. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is each and every probability that the petitioner may again indulge in the commission of same and similar offence, if released on bail, and further as it is evident from the record that the petitioner is a habitual offender, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its discretion to release the petitioner on bail. It is also evident from the status report that now statements of only eight witnesses remain to be recorded, which demonstrates that the trial is going to conclude soon.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the delay in the trial, the custody of the 4 2025:HHC:11092 petitioner in fact amounts to the petitioner being punished for commission of an offence, for which he has not yet been held guilty by the appropriate Court. Accordingly, he prays that de hors as to earlier also similar cases were registered against the petitioner, he is entitled for the grant of bail. He further submits that the conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of bail, shall be strictly adhered to by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that presently the petitioner is facing trial in three cases for commission of offence under NDPS Act. He submits that this means that the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner while he was enlarged on bail in other cases, wherein also, the allegations against him were of commission of similar offence. He submits that State is initiating action by filing applications for recalling of the bails granted to the petitioner in the earlier FIRs and in this case also, in the backdrop of the conduct of the petitioner, which is also highlighted in the earlier order passed by this Court, the 5 2025:HHC:11092 petitioner does not deserves to be released on bail, in larger public interest, as he is an habitual offender 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having also perused the status report as well as earlier order passed by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be ordered to be released on bail. 7. Though the petitioner is stated to be in custody from October, 2021, in the present FIR, the fact of the matter remains that presently there are three other FIRs pending against him for commission of offences under the NDPS Act. It is evident that the present FIR was lodged while he was on bail in the other FIRs registered against him under NDPS Act. This means that if the prayer of the petitioner is acceeded to, there is each and every possibility that he shall again indulge in the commission of the same offence, taking into consideration his history. 8. Otherwise also, the commission of offences under the NDPS Act are per se offences which affect the public at large, the society at large. Therefore, when the interest of the 6 2025:HHC:11092 society is there vis-a-vis the interest of an individual, this Court is of the considered view that it is the interest of society which prevails over the interest of an individual, who incidentally happens to be an habitual offender. 9. In the light of the above observations, this bail petition is dismissed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 25, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)