Himachal Pradesh High Court
Akash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:23685 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 938 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 10.07.2025
Date of Decision: 22.07.2025.
Akash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : M/s. Dhiraj Thakur & Priyanka
Chandel, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
ASI Paramjit Singh, IO, PS Sinhuta,
District Chamba, H.P., present with
police record.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 13/2025, dated 15.02.2025,
registered at Police Station Janjheli, District Mandi, H.P., for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 25 & 29 of
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
2( 2025:HHC:23685 )
the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (“in short
NDPS Act“), 1985.
.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
police apprehended Ruval Thakur and Sandeep Kumar on
15.02.2025, who were travelling in the car bearing registration No.
HP 32A-3709. The accused threw the polythene bag after seeing
the police. The police inspected the polythene pouch and found
44 grams of heroin/chitta in it. The police arrested the accused
and seized the heroin/chitta. They disclosed that heroin/chitta
was purchased for ₹68,000/- through Google Pay by making a
payment to an account maintained and managed by the co-
accused Manjinder Kaur and her son, co-accused Inderjeet @
Vishnu. As per the prosecution, the co-accused were working as
members of an organised crime syndicate, and they were
supplying heroin/chitta among the young in the area. The
petitioner was wrongly implicated. He is a responsible citizen and
is not involved in the commission of any offence. He is being
implicated based on the disclosure statement made by the co-
accused, and there is nothing to connect him with the
commission of the crime. He belongs to a respectable family, and
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
3( 2025:HHC:23685 )
there is no chance of his absconding. He 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 received a complaint on 15.02.2025 that
some persons were consuming heroin/chitta near the
Government School, Bhalwad. The police went to the spot and
found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP 32A-3709. Rubal
Thakur and Sandeep Kumar were found in the vehicle. Rubal
Thakur threw a polythene pouch towards the dhank. The police
checked the pouch and found 44 grams of heroin/chitta in it.
Rubal Thakur threw the pouch while it was being weighed, and 38
grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from the pouch. The police
seized the heroin/chitta and arrested Rubal Thakur & Sandeep
Kumar. The substance was sent to SFSL, Junga and was confirmed
to be diacetylmorphine. Rubal Thakur revealed that he had
purchased heroin/chitta from Akash Lohat (present petitioner).
The call detail record and transaction details were obtained. Both
were found at one place on 13.02.2025. Subsequently, other co-
accused were arrested. Bank account statements were checked,
and it was found that an amount of ₹1,07,000/- was transferred
by Rubal to the petitioner’s account. The petitioner has been
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
4( 2025:HHC:23685 )
absconding since 13.02.2025. His custodial interrogation is
required to know about the persons connected to the petitioner.
.
Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard M/s. Dhiraj Thakur & Priyanka Chandel,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Shamra, learned
Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5.
Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely
implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the
statement made by the co-accused, call detail record and
financial transactions. These are insufficient to connect the
petitioner with the commission of crime. Therefore, he prayed
that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released
on bail. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in
Anshul Rana v. State of H.P. [2025:HHC11014], in support of his
submission.
6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for
the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was involved
in the sale of heroin/chitta. A huge amount of ₹1,07,000/- was
transferred to the petitioner’s account by Rubal Thakur. The
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
5( 2025:HHC:23685 )
petitioner was in touch with Rubal Thakur, and their location was
found at one place. All these circumstances are sufficient to
.
further interrogate the petitioner. Hence, 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.
It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019)
3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-
arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It
was observed:
“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the
investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused
but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be
exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should
be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretionconferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after
application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the
accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice
and other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit
case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory
bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation
of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect
while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory
bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of
rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
6( 2025:HHC:23685 )convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to
that extraordinary remedy.”
8. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that economic
.
offences are to be treated differently from other offences. It was
observed:
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases ofeconomic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of society.
In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105: 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
xxxxxx
80. Observing that an economic offence is committed with
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless
of the consequence to the community, in State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364: 1987
SCC (Cri) 364], it was held as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)
“5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the
State are not brought to book. A murder may be
committed in the heat of the moment, upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit, regardless of the
consequences to the community. A disregard for the
interest of the community can be manifested only at
the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the
community in the system to administer justice in an
even-handed manner without fear of criticism from
the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
7( 2025:HHC:23685 )
permissive eye, unmindful of the damage done to the
national economy and national interest.”
81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class
.
apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri)
552], the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras
34-35)
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
to be viewed with a different approach in the matter of
bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need
to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of
the country.
35. While granting 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 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/State and other
similar considerations.” (emphasis supplied)
82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar
Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria,
(1998) 1 SCC 52: 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of
Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Directorate of
Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC
720: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045], while hearing an appeal by
the Enforcement Directorate against the order
[Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-
7-1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the Bombay
High Court granting anticipatory bail to the
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
8( 2025:HHC:23685 )
respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the
order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.
9. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v.
.
State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held:
“25. We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it
was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any
stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is
the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grantshould be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the
Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the
Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant ofinterim protection or protection to the accused in serious
cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper
the investigation to a great extent, as it may sometimes
lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shallnot be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass
interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to safeguard the
freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, andwe say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit
cases.”
10. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana,
(2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should
balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation
while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was
observed:
“21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding
individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent
the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
9( 2025:HHC:23685 )individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in
maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights
and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies.
in striking a balance between safeguarding individual
rights and protecting public interest. While the right to
liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court
must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact onsociety, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The
court’s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts
and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a
just outcome.”
11. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, that
an accused dealing in narcotics should not be released on bail. It
was observed:
“9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not
really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the
High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents.”
12. The present is to be decided as per the parameters laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner
was named by co-accused Rubal Thakur. His presence was found
with Rubal Thakur as per the call detail record. Rubal Thakur had
transferred ₹1,07,000/- to his account, and the petitioner & Rubal
Thakur were found in touch with each other. All these
circumstances, prima facie, show that there is sufficient material
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
10( 2025:HHC:23685 )
to further interrogate the petitioner for his involvement in the
commission of the crime.
.
14. It was submitted that the statement made by the co-
accused is not admissible. Reliance was placed upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu 2021 4 SCC (1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered this
judgment in Union of India vs Khaliludeen 2022 Supreme SC 1247
and denied bail to the accused, who was named by the co-
accused. It was observed: –
“8. The answer to said question could be the statement
recorded by Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. JakirHussain, recorded under Section 67 of the act, has also
named his owner Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact
that the validity and scope of such statements underSection 67 have been pronounced upon by this Court in
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. In Stateby (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and
Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 69, the rigour of law laid down
by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable evenat the stage of grant of bail.
9. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this
stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam
Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands
on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of
the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could
not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We,
therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by
the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken
in custody forthwith”.
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
11( 2025:HHC:23685 )
15. This position was reiterated in Union of India v. Ajay
Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346, wherein it was held:
.
“11. The information revealed by the above two accused
persons indicated that both of them knew the respondent-
accused and that they had connived with him to transportthe illicit ganja, and that they were in direct contact with
the respondent-accused all through his mobile number.
The facts as unfurled from the complaint/FIR and the
statements of the above two accused persons recordedunder Section 67 of the NDPS Act reveal that the
respondent-accused is the kingpin and the organiser of the
illicit trade in ganja
xxxx
17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of
commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any
finding that the respondent-accused is not prima
facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely tocommit the same offence when enlarged on bail; rather,
his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular offender.
In the absence of a recording of such satisfaction by thecourt, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly
erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.
16. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, that the
accused cannot be released on pre-arrest bail relying upon the
judgment in Tofan Singh (supra). It was observed:
“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the
respondents on the only ground that no recovery was
effected from the respondents and that they had been
implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of
the main accused, Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
12( 2025:HHC:23685 )placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this
Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.
xxxxx.
8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil
Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail
application or at the time of final hearing after the conclusionof the trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not
really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that theHigh Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents.” (Emphasis supplied)
17. These judgments were followed by this Court in Rajesh
Kumar v. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 458 of 2025, decided on
25.3.2025, and it was held that the pre-arrest bail can be denied to
a person named by the co-accused to enable the police to
interrogate the petitioner. An SLP No. 55547 of 2025 titled Rajesh
Kumar Vs. State of H.P. against this order was withdrawn on
21.4.2025. It was held by this Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of
HP 2025:HHC:20446 that a person named by the co-accused is not
entitled to pre-arrest bail. This order was upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jatinder Pal Singh vs. State of HP Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9629/2025 decided on 10.07.2025.
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
13( 2025:HHC:23685 )
18. Thus, the submission that the statement made by the
co-accused is insufficient to justify the pre-trial detention of the
.
petitioner cannot be accepted.
19. It was submitted that the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is required for ascertaining the names of the
persons to whom the heroin has been sold by the petitioner. This
submission is to be accepted as correct. It was laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC
187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail
should not be granted. It was observed: –
“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconcedwith a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected personis of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
information and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if thesuspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often, interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods need not
be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by
all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume
that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves
in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
14( 2025:HHC:23685 )task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves
as offender”
20. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in
.
Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032,
wherein it was observed: –
“13. One of the significant factors in determining this
question would be the need for custodial interrogation.
Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effectiveto question a suspect. The cocoon of protection afforded by
a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart
interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must also
be kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is oneof the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the
liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.”
21. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of
pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed:
“83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation
may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting useful information, and also thematerials which might have been concealed. Success in
such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that
he is protected by the order of the court. Grant ofanticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would
definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having
regard to the materials said to have been collected by the
respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the
stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail.”
18. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, that the
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS
15( 2025:HHC:23685 )
Courts should not grant bail in cases under the NDPS Act. It was
observed:
.
“9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not
really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the
High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail tothe respondents.”
22. In view of the above, the present petitioner is not
entitled to the concession to pre-arrest bail; hence, the present
23.
r to
petition fails and the same is dismissed.
The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
22nd July, 2025
(Shamsh Tabrez)
::: Downloaded on – 22/07/2025 21:22:17 :::CIS