Himachal Pradesh High Court
Robin Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 June, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17298 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1068 of 2025 Reserved on: 26.05.2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2025.
Robin Singh ...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. Ravi Tanta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 24/2025, dated 08.04.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, at Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The quantity of contraband is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner is a young person aged 24 years. He belongs to a respectable family, and his detention will hamper his future career. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 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 a patrolling duty on 08.04.2025. They received a secret information at 4:00 PM that a vehicle bearing registration No. PB01E-9829 was transporting a huge quantity of heroin. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring the warrant would have led to the destruction of the heroin; hence, the information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was sent to the SDPO, Theog. The police associated Devender Singh as an independent witness and set up a nakka. The police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. PB01E- 9829. The driver revealed his name as Mohammad Mohin. The person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Abhishek Mehra. The person sitting on the rear seat identified himself as Robin Singh (the petitioner), and the person beside him 3 identified herself as Sabana @ Mahi. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 54.420 grams of heroin from the bag kept on the rear seat. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The petitioner revealed during the investigation that he had purchased the heroin from Shinu for Rs. 1,00,000/- on credit. He also made a disclosure statement on 10.04.2025 and identified Ajay Thakur as the person who had sold the heroin to the petitioner. The substance was sent to FSL and was confirmed to be Dicetylmorphine (heroin). The certificate of identity was sent to the police station, however, the same has not been returned. The petitioner is involved in the sale of heroin. The petitioner is a resident of a different state, and he would abscond in case of his release on bail; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the heroin was recovered from a purse kept on the rear seat, therefore, there is no material 4 to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose, hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle from which the recovery was effected and prima facie, he was in possession of the heroin. The petitioner is involved in the sale and purchase of heroin, which is affecting the young generation adversely. His address has not been verified, and he would abscond in case of his release on bail, therefore, 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.
7. 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 5 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] .]
8. 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 6 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 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 7 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)
9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. Perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner was found present in the vehicle bearing registration No. PB- 01E-9829 from which 54.420 grams of heroin were recovered. In Madan Lal versus State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: 2003 SCC (Cri) 8 1664: 2003 SCC OnLineSC 874, the contraband was recovered from a vehicle, and it was held that all the occupants of the vehicle would be in conscious possession of the contraband. It was observed:
"19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, and as noted by the trial court, they were known to each other, and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.
20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act, which relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be conscious possession.
21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with the requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted.
22. The expression "possession" is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in the Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [(1979) 4 SCC 274: 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038: AIR 1980 SC 52] to work out a completely logical and precise definition of "possession" uniformly applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes.
23. The word "conscious" means awareness of a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.9
24. As noted in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 194: 1972 SCC (Cri) 678: AIR 1972 SC 1756], possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in the case in question, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control.
25. The word "possession" means the legal right to possession (see Heath v. Drown [(1972) 2 All ER 561: 1973 AC 498: (1972) 2 WLR 1306 (HL)] ). In an interesting case, it was observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his mother's flat, which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. (See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness [(1976) 1 All ER 844: 1976 QB 966 : (1976) 2 WLR 361 (QBD)] .)
26. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54, where also presumption is also available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.
27. In the factual scenario of the present case, not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused- appellants that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act."
12. The petitioner was travelling in the vehicle from which recovery was effected; hence, he was prima facie in possession of heroin.
10
13. It was submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin, thus, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. This submission cannot be accepted. This Court laid down in Dilbar Khan v. State of H.P., 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: 11
"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. Though allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved in accordance with 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 12 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.
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. The Karnataka High Court took a similar view in Sri. Thaha Ummer vs Union of India Criminal Petition No.9450/2022 decided on 09-11-2022 and held that merely because Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply, a person involved in the commission of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act cannot be released on bail as a matter of right.
17. The petitioner had also made a disclosure statement, which had led to the arrest of the co-accused-Ajay Thakur, therefore, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime.
18. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 54.420 grams of heroin, which is a huge quantity. Prima facie, the submission of Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, has to be accepted as correct that such a huge quantity could not have been meant for self- 13 consumption. The police also recovered a WhatsApp chat, which shows that the co-accused Ajay Thakur had sold heroin to Prajjwal. This material prima facie shows that the petitioner is a drug peddler, and releasing the petitioner on bail will adversely affect the interests of society.
19. The status report shows that the identity certificate has not been received, which means that the antecedents of the petitioner have not been verified. The address of the petitioner has also not been verified, and in the absence of a verified address, the presence of the petitioner before the Court cannot be ensured. It was submitted that the police had themselves mentioned the address in the status report, which shows that the address was verified. This submission is not correct because the address was mentioned as per the disclosure made by the petitioner, and this disclosure is yet to be checked and verified from the record, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this consideration as well.
20. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.
14
21. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing ,whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 3rd June, 2025 (saurav pathania)