The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to an accused arrested for possession of 7.033 kilograms of poppy husk, holding that residence in another state cannot be a ground to deny bail. The Court further observed that apprehension of absconding or intimidating witnesses can be addressed through appropriate conditions imposed at the time of bail.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was arrested by the Barotiwala Police in Solan district after recovery of 7.033 kilograms of poppy husk from his car. Following his arrest under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, he was sent to judicial custody.
He contended that he was falsely implicated and that the quantity recovered was less than commercial, hence the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable. The petitioner also submitted that he had no prior criminal record and undertook to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
Contentions:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged recovery involved an intermediate quantity of narcotics and that continued detention would serve no purpose since the investigation was complete. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s continued incarceration would hamper his chance of reformation.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail plea, asserting that the petitioner was involved in a serious offence under the NDPS Act. The State counsel contended that if released, the accused might abscond or influence witnesses.
Observations of Court :
Justice Rakesh Kainthla referred to the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., reiterating that bail discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence, evidence on record, and the likelihood of interference with justice.
The Court noted that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of poppy husk, below the commercial threshold prescribed under the NDPS Act, making Section 37 inapplicable. It was also observed that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents, and his continued detention could expose him to hardened offenders, defeating the purpose of reformation.
Importantly, the Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that bail should be denied because the petitioner was a resident of another state. Citing its earlier judgment in Collins v. State of H.P., the Court reiterated, “Bail cannot be denied to a person merely on the ground of his residence or nationality. The provision of local surety is not mandated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and surety can be from any part of the country or otherwise.”
The Bench further observed that the apprehension of the petitioner intimidating witnesses could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions on his release.
The decision of the Court:
In light of these findings, the Court held that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the charge sheet had already been filed. Granting bail, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Court imposed several conditions, including that the petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses, must attend all hearings, surrender his passport, and keep the investigating authorities informed of any change in address or contact details. The Court also clarified that violation of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Ugma Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 2098 of 2025
Coram: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Yug Singhal, Hitender Verma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Ajit Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
