Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mansoor Ali vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 1804 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 22.08.2025
Date of Decision: 28.08.2025
Mansoor Ali ...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. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the Respondent /State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking
regular bail in FIR No. 10 of 2025, dated 18.01.2025, registered for
the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the
NDPS Act‘) at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that a false case was registered
against the petitioner. The petitioner has deep roots in society.
There is no likelihood of his absconding. The petitioner has been
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
2
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
in custody since January 18, 2025. The charge-sheet has been
filed, and the petitioner is not required for investigation. The
.
petitioner would abide by 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 patrolling duty on
18.01.2025. They received a secret information at 2:15 pm that
Mansoor Ali (the present petitioner) was selling heroin. A huge
quantity of heroin could be recovered by his search. The police
reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Paonta Sahib. The police reached
the spot, indicated in the information, along with one Kashmir
Singh. The petitioner was found with a carry bag. He identified
himself as Mansoor Ali. The police searched the carry bag and
recovered 12.5 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and
arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to the State Forensic
Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, for analysis, and as per the
result of the analysis, it was found to be a sample of
diacetylmorphine (heroin). The police filed the charge sheet on
17.03.2025. The prosecution has cited 18 witnesses, out of whom
06 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed for
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
3
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 29.08.2025
and 30.08.2025. An FIR No. 374 of 2023 dated 19.02.2023 was
.
registered against the petitioner in the police station Vikas Nagar,
Dehradun, for the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 20 read with Section 8 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner
would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case he is
released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be
dismissed. r
4. I have heard Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
5. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he
was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was
found in possession of 12.5 grams of heroin. He has been in
custody since 18.01.2025; more than 7 months have elapsed since
the petitioner’s arrest. Therefore, he prayed that the present
petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Additional Deputy General,
submitted that the petitioner was earlier involved in the
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
4
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the
NDPS Act. This fact was not disclosed in the bail petition. The
.
petitioner has criminal antecedents and is likely to commit a
similar offence, in case of his release on bail; 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: –
“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 mustconsider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged tohave 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 andrepeating 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::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
5
( 2025:HHC:29055 )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 conditionsimposed 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 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 ofjustice” has been construed in several decisions of this
Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise itsdiscretion 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: —
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
6
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
“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 extremecondition 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 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 andcircumstances 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 withthe 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 hisabscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused;
and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused andlarger 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 arecovery 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 has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
7
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
12. A perusal of the status report shows that an FIR No. 374
of 2023, dated 19.02.2023, was registered against the petitioner for
.
the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 read
with Section 8 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner did not disclose
this fact in the bail petition filed by him. It was laid down by this
Court in Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. 2020 (1) Shim. L.C. 476 that the
petitioner must mention all the pending FIRs and all the criminal
trials where the sentence provided is 7 years or more. It was
observed:
“15. Given the above, it is obligatory that in every bail petition,
the petitioner must mention all pending FIRs and pending
criminal trials, where the sentence provided is seven years ormore. Furthermore, the petitioner must specify details of all
cases where he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for
one year or more.
16. In addition to the above, in every bail petition filed in any
Court within the jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh,the State/Respondent(s) shall explicitly mention in the status
report about the criminal history. In bail petitions where there is
no pleading about the criminal history, then theState/Respondent(s) shall bring it to the notice of the concerned
Court about the non-mentioning of the criminal history. In such
a situation, it shall be for the concerned Court to take a call, if it
so desires, depending upon the facts of each case.”
13. In the present case, the offence punishable under
Section 20 of the ND&PS Act is punishable with imprisonment of
20 years, and it was necessary to mention the registration of the
FIR in the bail petition, as per the direction of this Court.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
8
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
14. It was laid down by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh in Deen Mohd. Vs State of Haryana, CRM-M-26229
.
(O&M) decided on 10.06.2022 that when the petitioner conceals the
material fact from the Court, he cannot be held entitled to any
consideration at the hands of the Court. It was observed:-
“… The law is well settled that where a process is ‘ex debito
Justitiae’, the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion infavour of the applicant where the application is found to be
wanting in bona fides. Apex Court in the case of Hari Narain vs.
Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C.1558 approved of the said principle and
the same was followed in the case of Welcome Hotel vs State ofAndhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 575, where it was held that a party
which has misled the Court is not entitled to any consideration at
the hands of the Court.”
15. The status report shows that the police searched the
petitioner’s carry bag and recovered 12.5 grams of heroin; hence,
there is sufficient material to, prima facie, connect the petitioner
with the commission of the crime.
16. It was submitted that 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.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
9
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
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 organisedmanner.”
17. 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:
“8. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents and
students, has seriously eroded into the fabric of society, puttingthe 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 thelaw, 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 incontact 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.”
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
10
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
18. 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 fallunder the category of commercial quantity; nevertheless, such
quantity cannot be termed to be less by any stretch of the
imagination. The evident nature of commercial transactions and
dealing with the contraband aggravates the situation for thepetitioner. 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, puttingthe future generation as well as the prospects of future nation-
building into serious peril.”
19. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be released
on bail simply because the quantity of heroin recovered from his
possession was less than a commercial quantity.
20. The status report shows that 01 FIR was registered
against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the ND&PS Act. This report,
prima facie, shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.
This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal
antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held,
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
11
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and
.
his general conduct while considering the bail petition. Bail should
not be generally granted to an accused with criminal antecedents
when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime.
21. It was held in Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1103, that the criminal antecedents are relevant
to determine the propensity to commit the crime. It was observed:
31. Moreover, the Appellant’s criminal antecedents, though not
involving prior accusations under the NDPS Act, include multiple
DRI and customs proceedings involving smuggling of cigarettes,
undervaluation of imports, and alleged complicity in corruption
offences. These antecedents are relevant only for the limited pur-
pose of evaluating the Appellant’s propensity to interfere with the
process of justice if enlarged on bail.
22. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a
threat to society because of his criminal antecedents, he should
not be released on bail. It was observed:
“27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the
antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the ac-
cused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The
jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.”
23. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
12
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on
bail. It was observed: –
.
“20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are
concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years,
apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to havebeen involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous
cases shown in the charge sheet against the respondents, except
accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in
two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged
offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in ouropinion High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more
particularly when there was sufficient material to show
their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the
UAPA.”
24. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner
would disentitle him from the concession of bail, especially when the
F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner relates to the commission of a
similar offence, which shows that the possibility of the petitioner
committing a similar offence cannot be ruled out.
25. No other point was urged.
26. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the
same is dismissed.
27. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain
confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
::: Downloaded on – 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
13
( 2025:HHC:29055 )
28. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the
pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
28th August 2025
(Shamsh Tabrez)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:27:50 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link