Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 20.8.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 August, 2025

2025:HHC:28731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 1763 of 2025

Reserved on: 20.8.2025

Date of Decision: 26.8.2025.

    Shubham Dhani                                                                ...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. Jagat Pal, Advocate.
    For the Respondent/State                    :      Mr. Tarun Pathak,                    Deputy



                                                       Advocate General.

    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail in FIR No. 25 of 2025, dated 3.4.2025,

registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., for the

commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the

ND&PS Act').

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

2025:HHC:28731

2. It has been asserted that, as per the case of the

prosecution, 6.850 grams of heroin was recovered from the

petitioner, which is an intermediate quantity. The investigation

is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the

Court. FIR No. 23 of 2025, dated 6.2.2025, was registered against

the petitioner in Police Station, West Shimla, for the

commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the

ND&PS Act. The petitioner is aged 28 years and has completed

his degree in Hotel Management. He has a bright future, and his

continued detention will spoil his future. The petitioner would

abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose.

Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the

petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on

2.4.2025. The accused was found going towards Lakkar Bazar at

about 10.55 PM, near Snow View Park. The petitioner went

towards the parking after seeing the police. He took out

something from his left pocket and threw it towards the left side

of the road. The police became suspicious and apprehended the

petitioner. He identified himself as Shubham Dhanni. The police

2025:HHC:28731

checked the article thrown by the petitioner and recovered 6.85

grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized

the heroin. FIR No. 23/25, dated 6.2.2025, was registered against

the petitioner in Police Station, Boileauganj, for the commission

of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. The

petitioner is a habitual offender, and he would indulge in the

commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail.

Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely

implicated. The police had recovered 6.850 grams of heroin as

per the prosecution's case. The rigours of Section 37 of the

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

been in custody since 3.4.2025. He would abide by the terms and

conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed

that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be

released on bail.

2025:HHC:28731

6. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was

involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier. He is

likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail.

Heroin is adversely affecting the young generation, and its

possession should not be viewed lightly. 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 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 obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing

2025:HHC:28731

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] .]

9. 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 empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any

2025:HHC:28731

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 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 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

2025:HHC:28731

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)

10. A similar view was taken in Shabeen Ahmed versus

State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.

11. The present petition is to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. The status report shows that the petitioner was

found coming towards the police party, and he threw something

after seeing the police. The police picked up the article and

recovered 6.850 grams of heroin. Therefore, prima facie, the

petitioner was found in possession of 6.850 grams of heroin.

13. It was submitted that the petitioner was found in

possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin, and he is

entitled to bail as a matter of right. This submission is not

acceptable. This Court laid down in Dilbar Khan v. State of H.P.,

2025:HHC:28731

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 society in modern times. The victims are innocent adolescents, among 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 organised manner."

14. 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.

2025:HHC:28731

Though allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved in accordance with the law, it cannot be taken singly 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 the 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 will definitely be detrimental to its interests.

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 the petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released

on bail."

15. 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 a 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.

2025:HHC:28731

7. 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."

16. It is undisputed that an FIR No. 23 of 2025 has been

registered against the petitioner for the commission of an

offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. Hence,

the submission that the petitioner would indulge in the

commission of a similar offence in case of releasing him on bail

has to be accepted as correct. 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 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