Harinder vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kaint la, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No.06/2025, dated 25.01.2025, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamaba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS), Act.

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 parked on the road. The police called the owner, Shobhi Ram, who disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar (the present petitioner) two months before the incident. The police located Harinder Kumar based on his tower location, and he was found at Lahad Kunah in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 with Dharu Ram and Liakat Ali. The petitioner disclosed on enquiry that he had pu chased the vehicle from the previous owner, but stated that he had handed it over to Rakesh Kumar. The police took the petitioner and other persons to the spot, searched the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 and recovered 2.570 kgs of charas. The allegations against the petitioner are false. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

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 P-01C-1969 parked on the roadside. The driver identi ied himself as Dharu Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Liyakat Ali, and the person si ing in the rear seat identified himself as Harinder Kumar. The police brought them 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 D aru Ram and Liyakat Ali ran away from the spot. The police ran after them but could not catch them. The search was continued, and the police recovered 2.570 kgs of charas. The police seized the charas. The police conducted the 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 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 AM. Police arrested Rakesh Kumar, present petitioner and Dharo Ram. 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 was listed for checking of copies on 3 9 2025. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. FIR No. 33 of 2020, dated 17.03.2020, has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and indulge in the commission of a similar offence, in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status eport.

I have heard Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not present in the vehicle from which the recovery was effected. He was in another vehicle and could not be connected to the recovery of the charas. The petitioner would abide by 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.

Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 was followed by another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969. The occupants of the latter vehicle were in touch with the occupants of the former vehicle, which showed their involvement in the commission of the crime. The petitioner is the wner f the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331, and he had abetted the transportation of the cha as in it. 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.

T e 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 elaborat-ing 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 perti-nent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or 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 juris-diction 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 f the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecu ion or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enq i e 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 seri us offences while on bail. In regard to habitu-als, 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 dis-cretion, 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 ex-tracted 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 cir-cumstances 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 ac- cused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the wit-nesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the pub-lic 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 hat 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 f bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judi-cious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Need-less 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 placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the mat-ter of grant of bail, and 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, how-ever, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (em-phasis 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 can-not 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 re-gard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the actors 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 his C urt d es not, normally, interfere with an order passed by he High Court granting or reject-ing bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Co t to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic princi-ples laid d wn 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 applica-tion 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 convic-tion;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if re-leased 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 in-fluenced; 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 ap-plication of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the ac-cused 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 consci us f the fact that liberty of an in-dividual is an invaluable right, at the same time while con-sidering an applica ion for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious natu e of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the acc sations may not be false, frivolous or vexa-tious in nat re b t are supported by adequate material brought n record so as 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 sup-ported by reasons and must be arrived at after having re-gard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the na-ture 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 ac-cused.” (emphasis supplied)

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

It is an admitted case of the petitioner that the police found a vehicle bearing registration No HP-44-5331 abandoned on the spot. The driver ran away after seeing the police. The previous owner, Shobhi Ram, disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to the present petitioner. The police found another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 at a distance of 2 km and found the petitioner and other persons occupying it The police recovered the charas from the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331. The petitioner, Liakat Ali, and Rakesh Kumar, were found to be in touch with each other w.e.f. 7:43 a.m. till 12.48 a.m. The police also checked the CCTV footage and found that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 had crossed the spot at 10:08 a.m., and the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 had crossed the spot at 10:11 a.m. The status report only shows that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 was followed by another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 at 10:00 a.m. The naaka was set up at 12:15 p.m., and the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 was abandoned at that time. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 and his talking to the driver of his vehicle cannot amount to any abetment. The allegations made by the prosecution may give rise to a suspicion, but are not sufficient to, prima facie, conclude that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence.

The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter was listed for checking of copies on 03.09.2025, which means that the investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.

It was submitted that the petitioner is involved in the abetment of the commercial quantity f charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of ND&PS apply to the p esent case. This submission is not acceptable. There is nothing to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime except the calls made by him to his driver and ownership of the vehicle, which, prima facie, are insufficient to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case.

It was asserted that FIR No. 33 of 2020, dated 17.03.2020, has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he should not be released on bail. This submission would have been acceptable had the prosecution collected any material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. In the absence of any such material, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody simply because he was involved in the commission of some offence in the past.

The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Chamba, which was not stated to be incorrect in the status report, which means that the petitioner has roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is rdered 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 t e 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 Superin endent, District Jail Chamba, and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

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