Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lal Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) Nos 650 and 666 of 2025
Reserved on: 25.03.2025
Date of Decision: 1st April 2025.
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 650 of 2025
Lal Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
________________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 666 of 2025
Kuldeep Singh …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. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Abhishek Verma,
Advocate, in both the petitions.
For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General with
HC Ashu Aggarwal, No. 388, IO
Police Station Renuka Ji, District
Sirmour, H.P., in both the petitions.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for
seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 15 of 2025,
dated 01.03.2025, has been registered against the petitioners for the
commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in Police
Station Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, HP. As per the prosecution’s
case, the police effected the recovery of 125 capsules containing 61
grams of tramadol. The quantity of Tramadol is intermediate, and
the rigours of Section 37 do not apply to the present case. There is a
violation of Section 42 (d) and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The
petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. They
would join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. They
would not tamper with the prosecution evidence and would abide by
all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence,
the petition.
2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 01.03.2025.
A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-71A-4955 came from
Tirmali. The rider of the motorcycle was not wearing a helmet. The
police stopped the motorcycle and demanded the documents. The
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
motorcycle rider revealed his name as Kuldeep Singh, and the pillion
rider revealed his name as Lal Singh. Both of them appeared to be
frightened. The police checked the motorcycle and recovered
capsules bearing the words Spas C plus CORF. They were counted and
found to be 125. They were weighed on an electronic scale, and their
weight was found to be 62.16 grams. The police seized the capsules.
The capsules were sent to FSL for analysis, and as per the result, they
were found to contain Tramadol. Their weight was found to be
61.625 grams, and the weight of the powder was found to be 49.375
grams. FIR No. 14 of 2009, dated 07.03.2009, was registered in Police
Station Renuka Ji and FIR no. 185 of 2021, dated 03.11.2021, was
registered against petitioner Kuldeep Singh in Police Station Paonta
Sahib. The petitioners are to be arrested. They are to be interrogated
to determine the source and destination of the capsules. They would
indulge in the commission of similar offences and destroy the
evidence in case of their release on bail; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard. Mr Deepak Kaushal learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for
the respondent/State.
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
4. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
were falsely implicated. The quantity of Tramadol stated to have
been recovered from the possession of the petitioners is
intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not
apply to the present case. There is no prohibition in granting pre-
arrest bail in offences registered under the NDPS Act. He relied upon
the judgments of Ram Singh versus State of H.P. in Cr.MP(M) No. 600
of 2020 decided on 05.05.2020 and Cr.MP(M) No. 1930 of 2019, titled
Pyare Lal versus State, decided on 07.11.2019 in support of his
submission.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the police have to
determine the source and destination of the capsules. Petitioner
Kuldeep was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier,
which shows that he is a habitual offender. The psychotropic
substances are affecting the young generation adversely, and cases
of this nature should not be viewed lightly; hence, he prayed that the
present petitions be dismissed.
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
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 438
Cr.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 discretion
conferred 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 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:
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic 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 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 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.
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
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 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 grant should 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
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )cautious as the grant of interim 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 shall not 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, and we 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
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 on society, 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
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
“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. In the present case, the police had found 125 capsules,
which is a huge quantity and could not have been meant for self-
consumption. It has been asserted that the police have to ascertain
the source and destination of the capsules. Keeping in view the
adverse effect of narcotics on society, the prayer of the police to
interrogate the petitioners to determine the source and destination
of the narcotics appears to be justified.
13. 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-ensconced with a favourable
order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this,
effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disintering many useful information and also
materials which would have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the suspected 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
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )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 task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as
offender”
14. 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 effective to 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 be also kept in mind that while
interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective
methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also
needs to be balanced out.”
15. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of
pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigation. 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 the
materials 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 of anticipatory 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.”
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:8635 )
16. It was submitted that there is a violation of Sections 42
and 50 of the NDPS Act. This is not acceptable. The present case is
one of chance recovery, and prima facie, the provisions of Sections 42
and 50 do not apply to the present case.
17. The judgments cited at the bar will not help the
petitioners because the cited judgments deal with the cultivation of
opium, where the possession of the field was not established. In the
present case, the status report shows that a prima facie case is made
against the petitioners.
18. Keeping in view the quantity of narcotics recovered and
the material collected by the police, the petitioners are not entitled to
the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petitions fail,
and the same are dismissed.
19. The observations made heretofore shall remain confined
to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever,
on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
1st April 2025 Judge
(Saurav Pathania)
[ad_1]
Source link