Hanil Kumar Vs State of Hp

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 118 of 2025, dated 06.04.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short

¶12

‘NDPS Act’)

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

2

¶15

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶16

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP12C-2554, which was being driven by the petitioner. He took out a polythene bag from his pocket, threw it on the ground, and tried to conceal it by putting his right foot over it. The police checked the polythene bag and found 7.36 grams of chitta/heroin in it. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has a minor child and a young wife. They are dependent upon the petitioner. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

¶17

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 06.04.2025. They received a secret information at 06:30 pm that the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12C2554 was transporting heroin/chitta, and in case of his search, a huge quantity of heroin/chitta could be recovered from his possession. The information was credible. It was reduced to writing and was sent to the SDPO, Nalagarh. The police intercepted the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12C2554. The rider took out a polythene packet, threw it on the

¶18

3

¶19

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶20

ground, and tried to conceal it beneath his right foot. The police checked the packet in the presence of witnesses and found 7.36 grams of heroin/chitta in it. The police seized the heroin/chitta and arrested the petitioner. The heroin/chitta was sent to SFSL, Junga and as per the result of the analysis, it was found to be a sample of diacetylmorphine (heroin) weighing 6.22 grams. The challan was filed before the Court on 05.06.2025. Hence, the status report.

¶21

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

¶22

Mr. S.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent. As per the police report, an intermediate quantity of heroin was found in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and he should be given a chance to reform himself; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶23

Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of

¶24

4

¶25

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶26

heroin/chitta, which is adversely affecting the young generation, and no sympathy should be shown to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶27

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶28

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: -

¶29

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

¶30

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, the gravity 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 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 Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil

¶31

5

¶32

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶33

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] . ]

¶34

This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of

¶35

M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as

¶36

under:-

¶37

“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 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:

¶38

“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 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

¶39

6

¶40

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶41

the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶42

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: —

¶43

“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 extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶44

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:

¶45

“ 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 tampering 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 other

¶46

7

¶47

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶48

considerations. 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)

¶49

This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.

¶50

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

¶51

A perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner had thrown something on the ground and kept his right foot over it to conceal it from the police. The police checked the substance and found it to be heroin/chitta. The total weight of heroin/chitta was found to be 6.226 grams in the laboratory. These allegations show that there is prima facie sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.

¶52

The petitioner asserted that no previous FIR was registered against him. It was not stated to be incorrect in the status report. The quantity of heroin/chitta stated to be recovered from the petitioner was slightly more than the small quantity. Keeping in view the quantity and the absence of criminal antecedents, the submission made on behalf of the

¶53

8

¶54

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶55

petitioner that the petitioner deserves a chance to reform himself has to be accepted as correct. In case of continued detention of the petitioner, he would come into contact with the hardened criminal, and the chances of his reformation would become bleak.

¶56

The police have filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court. No reason has been mentioned in the status report to justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can be released on bail.

¶57

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds 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: -

¶58

(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;

¶59

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;

¶60

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the

¶61

9

¶62

( 2025:HHC:23793 )

¶63

address of the intended visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned, and the Trial Court;

¶64

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

¶65

(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.

¶66

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.

¶67

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail Kishanpura at Nalagarh, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶68

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.

¶69

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶70

23^rd July, 2025

¶71

( Shamsh Tabrez )

¶72

Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.23 14:26:43 NPT

Hanil Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanil Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardik Chawla Vs State of Hp

Balbir Singh Vs State of Hp

Farooq Ahmad Vs State of Hp

Ram Lal Vs Jagpal

Arjun Singh Vs State of Hp

Kailash Chander Vs State of Hp and Others