Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 9.7.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 July, 2025
2025:HHC:22851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 1169 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 9.7.2025
Date of Decision: 16.7.2025.
Amar Nath ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Varun
Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 172 of 2024, dated 20.10.2024,
registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.
for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20
and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(in short ‘the ND&PS Act‘).
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:22851
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested
along with two other persons. The petitioner is a taxi driver, and
.
he was hired by the co-accused to take them to Chandigarh. The
Investigating Officer did not provide the grounds for arrest to
the petitioner. The petitioner has no past criminal history, and
he has been in custody since 20.10.2024. The petitioner would
abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police party was on Nakabandi duty on
20.10.2024. A taxi bearing registration No. HP-01K-4679 came
from Mandi at 8.10 PM. The police signalled the driver to stop
the vehicle. The driver stopped the vehicle. The police started
checking the documents. The person sitting beside the driver
tried to conceal a bag. The police asked him the reason for doing
so, but he could not give a satisfactory answer. The driver
identified himself as Amarnath, the person sitting beside the
driver identified himself as Vidya Nath, and the person sitting
on the rear seat identified himself as Duni Chand. The police
checked the bag kept by Vidya Nath and found 1.511 kgs. of
charas in it. The police seized the charas and arrested the
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:22851
occupants. The charas was sent to FSL and was confirmed to be
the extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police
.
checked the call detail record and the bank statements, but could
not find the involvement of any other person. All the people
were known to each other. Vidya Nath and Amar Nath are
remotely related to each other. The police filed the charge sheet
before the learned Special Judge on 22.1.2025. The matter was
listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on
16.6.2025. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Mr. Varun Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was
falsely implicated. As per the status report, the petitioner is a
taxi driver. His taxi was hired by the co-accused. As per the
prosecution, the bag was kept by the co-accused, who had tried
to conceal it. The petitioner did not know anything about the
transportation of the charas. Grounds of arrest were not
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:22851
supplied to the petitioner, and his arrest is illegal; therefore, he
prayed that the present petition be allowed and he be released
.
on bail. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his
submission:-
(i) Madhu Limaye and others (1969) 1 SCC 292;
(ii) Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1962 SCC
OnLine SC 117;
(iii) Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. UOI and others (1981) 2 SCC
427;
(iv) Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
367;
(v) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC
254;
(vi) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another 2025
INSC 162;
(vii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17132 of 2024, decided on22.4.2025;
(viii) Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and others 2025 INSC 768;
(ix) Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
(2024) 7 SCC 599;
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:22851
(x) State of Karnataka Vs. Hemanth Datta @ Hemantha @
Baby and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
9295 of 2025, decided on 26.6.2025;
.
(xi) Sri Shankar Dongarisabeb Bhosale Vs. State of
Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 1221 of 2017, decided on
9.1.2025;
(xii) Minnas Ali Vs. State of Aassm 2025 SCC OnLine Gau
2597;
062550;
r to
(xiii) Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Punjab 2025 PHHC
(xiv) Ajir Ali @ Badu Vs. State of Assam GAHC010016982025;
(xv) Azibur Rahman @ Aziz @ Ajibur Vs. State of Aasam
2025:GAU-AS:5385;
(xvi) Sudhar Mangar Vs. State of West Bengal; Cr.M(NDPS)
No. 146 of 2025, decided on 11.6.2025;
(xvii)Hemanth Data Vs. State of Karnataka 2025 KHC 16018;
(xviii) Kamal Lama Vs. State of West Bengal; Cr.M (NDPS) No.
153 of 2025, decided on 11.6.2025; and
(xix) Kabel Uddin and another Vs. State of Assam, 2025 GAU-
AS 4663.
6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the grounds
of arrest were communicated to the petitioner as is apparent
from the memo of arrest. The police had recovered 1.511 kgs. of
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:22851
charas from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner. The
rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case.
.
The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down
under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. Therefore, 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, thegravity 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::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:22851SCC 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 directlyrelated to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empoweredto 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 thepresence 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::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:22851court 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 inthe 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 theCourt 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 itchooses 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 tobe 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
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:22851tampering 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 otherconsiderations. 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. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. The status report clearly mentions that the petitioner
is a taxi driver. The police signalled the petitioner to stop the
vehicle, and the petitioner stopped it. The police demanded the
documents, and he showed them the documents. However, the
person sitting adjacent to the petitioner tried to conceal the bag.
These circumstances do not show that the petitioner had any
knowledge about the possession of the charas. He did not try to
speed away after the police signalled him to stop the vehicle;
rather, he stopped the vehicle. He produced the documents, as
any driver would do. The status report does not show that the
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:22851
petitioner behaved abnormally in any manner. It was laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb
.
Bhosale Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1221/2017,
decided on 9.1.2025, that when the contraband was not hidden in
the taxi but was visible, the taxi driver cannot be convicted. It
was observed: –
“Ordinarily, since it is not disputed that the appellant was
a taxi driver and that the contraband was seized from the
taxi while he was carrying two passengers who fled fromthe scene, it cannot be said with any certainty that the
appellant himself was carrying the contraband or hasconnived to carry the said contraband in his vehicle. It
was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the
passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner, beforeallowing the passenger to board the taxi, asks for such
details from the passenger(s). Moreover, no effort was
made to search out the two passengers who may revealthe truth.
The appellant-driver took the defence that he is totally
ignorant about the contraband being carried in his
vehicle, and it may belong to the passengers who have
fled from the spot. Therefore, since the contrabandcannot be linked to the appellant, he is not liable to be
prosecuted.”
13. In the present case, the police asserted in the status
report that Vidya Nath is a distant relative of the accused, but
that by itself is not sufficient to connect him with the
commission of the crime. As per the status report, the police
collected the call detail record and the bank statement. The
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
11
2025:HHC:22851
status report does not show that the petitioner was in touch with
the co-accused or that any money was transferred from the
.
petitioner’s account to the account of the co-accused. Therefore,
there is insufficient material at this stage to prima facie connect
the petitioner with the commission of the crime.
14. The status report does not show that the petitioner
has criminal antecedents. The material on record is prima facie
insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a
crime; therefore, it cannot be said that he would indulge in the
commission of a crime in case of his release on bail.
15. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has reserved judgment regarding the
furnishing of grounds of arrest in each and every case, including
offences punishable under the IPC in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State
of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 17132 of 2024, vide order dated
22.4.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had not decided this
question in the State of Karnataka v. Hemanth Dutta, SLP (Crl.) No.
9295 of 2025 vide order dated 26.6.2025 and waited for the
outcome of the decision. Therefore, it would be improper for this
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
12
2025:HHC:22851
Court to go into this question regarding the supply of grounds of
arrest to the petitioner involved in a case arising out of the NDPS
.
Act, especially when the accused is entitled to bail on merits, and
the adjudication of this question will not help him in getting the
bail; hence, this question is left open.
16. 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 unnecessaryadjournments;
(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::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
13
2025:HHC:22851number or social media accounts, the same will be
intimated to the Police/Court within five days from
the date of the change.
.
17. 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.
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Open Air
Jail, Bilaspur, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding
the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the case’s merits.
20. 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
16th July, 2025
(Chander)
::: Downloaded on – 16/07/2025 21:22:27 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link