Aakash Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 07 of 2026, dated 07.01.2026, registered in Police Station Boileaugunj, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 08.01.2026 for possession of 356.280 grams of charas. The recovery was made from the room, and not from the petitioner’s personal search. The contraband was brought by co-accused Surender Singh, and there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. No call details or financial transactions were attributed to the petitioner. Shayam Lal Thakur is the owner of the paying guest accommodation where the petitioner was residing at the relevant time. The petitioner was staying in the premises as a paying guest and had nothing to do with the contraband stated to have been recovered by the police. FIR No. 78/2024 dated 29.04.2024 is pending against the petitioner. Petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He has deep roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the court may impose upon him. Hence, the petition.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 07.01.2026 near Police Post Summerhil. They received secret information at about 6.45 P.M. that Shyam Lal Thakur, Ajay Kumar, Surinder Singh and Aakash Thakur (the present petitioner) were selling narcotics in their room, and a huge quantity could be recovered by searching the room. The delay in the search and procurement of a search warrant would have led to the destruction of the case property. Hence, a report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was sent to the Supervisory Officer at Police Station West. The police joined Jyoti Swaroop as an independent witness and reached the place. They knocked at the door. One person opened the door, and three people were found inside the room. They disclosed their names as Shayam Lal Thakur, Ajay Kumar, Surender Singh and Aakash Thakur. The police searched the room and recovered a plastic bag containing 356.280 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the room. Charas was sent to the FSL, and the result is awaited. Surender Singh disclosed that he had brought the charas. Ajay Kumar, Shyam Lal Thakur and Aakash Thakur also confirmed this statement. No other FIR is registered against the petitioner. Charas is adversely affecting the young generation. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard M/s Sunil Dutt Gautam and Harmohan Thakur, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr Sunil Dutt Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The status report mentions that the charas was brought by Surender Singh, and the petitioner has nothing to do with it. The quantity of charas stated to have been recovered by the police is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner is a student, and his continued detention in prison would adversely affect his studies. Hence, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was present at the time of recovery of contraband. Therefore, he was in joint possession of charas. Charas is adversely affecting the young generation, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)

In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)

“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied)

This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)

“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied)

xxxxxxx

One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)

“35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The status report specifically mentions that Surender Singh had brought the charas. This statement was confirmed by the rest of the occupants of the room, including the petitioner. Therefore, the status report itself rules out the possession of the petitioner.

Even otherwise, the petitioner was found in possession of 356.280 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.

The status report also mentions that no other FIR is registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents which would disentitle him from the concession of bail.

The petitioner is a student, and his continued detention in prison would affect his studies adversely. Further, being the first offender, he is entitled to reform himself and his continued detention in prison would adversely affect the chances of his reformation, as he would be in contact with hardened criminals in jail.

It was submitted that the charas is adversely affecting the young generation, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. This submission will not help the State. The bail cannot be denied as punishment without trial, and if the prosecution can prove its case, the petitioner will suffer the consequences as per the law. Further, in view of the specific recital in the status report that charas belongs to Surender Singh, the petitioner cannot be denied bail.

The petitioner has asserted that he is a permanent resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh and he has deep roots in the society. This was not stated to be incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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;

(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.

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.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Kaithu, Shimal H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.