Reserved On: 24.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 24.03.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 April, 2025

2025:HHC:8377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 544 of 2025 Reserved on: 24.03.2025 Date of Decision: 01.04.2025.

    Kewal Ram                                                                    ...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. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek

regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested

vide FIR No. 14 of 2025, dated 14.2.2025, for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered

at Police Station Kunihar, District Solan, H.P. No recovery was

effected from the petitioner. No notice under Section 50 of the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2025:HHC:8377

Act was given to him. The petitioner has no concern with the

recovered contraband. His custodial interrogation is not

required. 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

13.2.2025. They received a secret information at 12:25 AM that a

vehicle bearing registration No. HP-08A-6193 was transporting

a huge quantity of charas. The police reduced the information

into writing and intercepted the vehicle at 1.00 AM. The driver

revealed his name as Kewal Ram. Another person sitting beside

the driver revealed his name as Raju. The police searched the

vehicle and found 307 grams of charas. The police seized the

charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. An FIR No. 11/11

was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Parwanoo,

and he was acquitted by the Court on 29.5.2015. As per the report

of analysis, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample

of charas. The charge sheet is being prepared and filed before

the Court.

2025:HHC:8377

3. I have heard Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy

Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was

falsely implicated. No recovery is to be effected from him, and

the prosecution's case is false. Therefore, he prayed that the

present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on

bail.

5. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General

for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was

found in possession of 307 grams of charas, which is a huge

quantity and could not have been meant for self-consumption.

The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar

offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed 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.

2025:HHC:8377

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

"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 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

2025:HHC:8377

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 an 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 application for bail 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 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)

2025:HHC:8377

8. The present petition has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. A perusal of the status report shows that the

petitioner was found driving a vehicle bearing registration No.

HP-08A-6193 from which 307 grams of charas was recovered.

Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the

commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i)(B)

of the ND&PS Act.

10. It has been asserted in the status report that FIR

No.11/11, dated 21.1.2011, was registered against the petitioner in

Police Station Parwanoo, and the petitioner was acquitted by

this Court on 29.5.2015. Therefore, the petitioner has no criminal

antecedents as of today.

11. The petitioner was found in possession of 307 grams

of charas, which is more than a small quantity and less than a

commercial quantity. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the

ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case.

12. The status report shows that the charge sheet has not

been filed and is being prepared. The preparation of the charge

sheet will take some time. The Court will take cognisance of the

2025:HHC:8377

commission of the offence, and thereafter, the evidence is to be

led, which will also take some time. The petitioner cannot be

kept behind the bars indefinitely till the conclusion of the trial.

Keeping in view all these considerations, the petitioner is

entitled to bail.

13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,

and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of

₹50,000/- 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 in case a charge sheet is presented against him 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, 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 the Police/Court through SMS/ WhatsApp/ Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile

2025:HHC:8377

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, Central Model

Jail, Kanda, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

16. The observation made herein before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no

bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st April, 2025 (Chander)