Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 20.8.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 August, 2025
2025:HHC:28902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 1858 of 2025
Reserved on: 20.8.2025
Date of Decision: 27.8.2025.
Dharu 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. K.S. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 25.1.2025,
registered for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (in short 'the ND&PS Act'), at Police Station,
Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:28902
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
police intercepted a car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 at
Sukhdain Bain. Its driver fled towards the Jungle. Sobhi Ram was
found to be the owner of the vehicle, who revealed that he had
sold it to Harinder Kumar. The police searched for Harinder and
found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 parked on
the roadside. The driver revealed his name as Dharu Ram (present
petitioner). The person sitting beside the driver disclosed his
name as Liyakat Ali, and the person sitting in the rear seat
disclosed his name as Harinder Kumar. Harinder Kumar also
disclosed that he had purchased the car bearing registration No.
HP-44-5331 from Sobhi Ram and had handed it over to Rakesh
Kumar. The police checked the vehicle bearing registration No.
HP-44-5331. Dharu Ram and Liyakat Ali ran away from the spot
towards the jungle taking advantage of the darkness. The police
recovered 2.570 kgs. of Charas from the vehicle. No recovery was
effected from the petitioner. There is no material to connect the
petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner
surrendered himself to the police. The petitioner would abide by
the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the
petition.
2025:HHC:28902
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on
24.1.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-
44-5331. The driver stopped the vehicle after seeing the police
and ran towards the jungle. The police followed him but could not
apprehend him. Shobhi Ram was found to be the registered
owner, who was contacted telephonically. He disclosed that he
had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar. The location of Harinder
Kumar was found between Lahad and Kunah. The police searched
for him and found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-
1969 parked on the roadside. The driver identified himself as
Dharu Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified
himself as Liyakat Ali, and the person sitting in the rear seat
identified himself as Harinder Kumar. The Police brought him to
the spot where the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331
was parked. The vehicle was searched in the presence of Abdul
Mazeed and Basheer Mohammad. The police were searching the
vehicle when Dharu Ram and Liyakat Ali had run away from the
spot. The police ran after them but could not trace them. The
search was continued, and the police recovered 2.570 kgs. of
charas. The police seized the charas. The police conducted the
2025:HHC:28902
investigation and obtained the call detail record. The record of
CCTV Footage was also checked. The vehicles bearing registration
No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44-5331 were found to be moving
together in the CCTV Footage. Rakesh Kumar had talked to
Harinder Kumar and Liyakat Ali many times between 7.43 AM and
12.48 PM. Police arrested Rakesh Kumar, Harinder Kumar and
Dharo Ram (petitioner). Liyakat Ali has absconded, and efforts
are being made to trace him. The charge sheet was filed after the
completion of the investigation. The matter is listed for checking
of copies on 3.9.2025. The petitioner is involved in the
commission of a heinous offence. He had absconded, and the
chances of his further absconding cannot be ruled out. Hence, the
status report.
4. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely
implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the
statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in
2025:HHC:28902
evidence. The petitioner himself surrendered, and the
apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner
will not join the investigation in case of his release on bail is
without any basis. There is no legally admissible evidence against
the petitioner, and his continued detention in prison is not
justified. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed
and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for
the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was
escorting the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 from
which a commercial quantity of cannabis was recovered. Rigours
of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case, and the
petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in
Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. 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: -
2025:HHC:28902
"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 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: -
"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
2025:HHC:28902
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 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 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)
2025:HHC:28902
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 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 and
Harinder, owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-
5331, were travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-
2025:HHC:28902
01C-1969. The police checked the call detail record and found that
Rakesh Kumar, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-
44-5331 was in touch with Harinder Kumar and Liyakat Ali. The
status report does not show that Rakesh Kumar had ever talked to
the petitioner. Thus, the status report does not connect the
petitioner with the commission of crime.
13. It was submitted that Liyakat Ali and the petitioner
ran away from the spot when the police were checking the vehicle
bearing registration No. HP-44-5331, but this circumstance by
itself is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner. This
circumstance may give rise to a grave suspicion, but a suspicion,
however strong it may be, admission can never take the place of
proof. Therefore, this circumstance is not justified to connect the
petitioner with the commission of the crime.
14. The status report also shows that vehicles bearing
registration No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44-5331 were found
moving together in the CCTV Footage. However, the mere fact
that the vehicles were moving together is no reason to suggest
that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 was
escorting the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331.
2025:HHC:28902
Therefore, this circumstance cannot be used for detaining the
petitioner.
15. The status report does not show any sufficient
material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.
Therefore, the first condition that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the petitioner has not committed the crime is
satisfied.
16. The petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents, and there is no material on record to show that the
petitioner is likely to commit the crime in case of his release on
bail. Therefore, the second condition laid down under Section 37
of the ND&PS Act is also satisfied.
17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- 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.
2025:HHC:28902
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and
every hearing 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
concerned, 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 number
or social media accounts, the same will be intimated
to the Police/Court within five days from the date of
the change.
18. 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.
19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of
this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail, Chamba,
H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on
the case's merits.
2025:HHC:28902
21. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by
the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the
petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity
of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may
be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
27th August 2025
(Chander)
CHANDER Digitally signed by
CHANDER SHEKHAR
SHEKHAR Date: 2025.08.27 13:45:00
+0530
