Himachal Pradesh High Court · 2025

Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, alongwith case property, inventory and relevant documents, after their medical examination. During police custody of the aforesaid accused 4 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) persons, Apples impounded alongwith seized vehicle, used for trafficking of charas, being perishable items, were auctioned in open market at Bilaspur and sale proceed of the same was enclosed with the complaint. 7 On the basis of material came in the light during interrogation, Lal Chand was asked by the NCB Team to join investigation, who had appeared before the NCB Investigating Team on 25.01.2021 and his statement was recorded. He has confessed his acquaintance with Danvir Singh and Praveen Kumar and according to him, Danvir Singh had asked him to bring charas from Lal Chand and for that purpose, petitioner Danvir Singh had given him Rs.1,55,000/- on 24.09.2020 and as such Lal Chand had conspired with petitioner Danvir Singh and co-accused Praveen Kumar to get charas through Lakhan in Mahindra Pickup. 8 It is the case of prosecution that all accused persons were found in contact of each other through their mobiles and this fact has been substantiated from Call Details Record of accused persons. 9 It has been contended that co-accused Rahul has also been enlarged on bail. Whereas, no case has been made out against Prem Pal despite the fact that at the time of alleged recovery of contraband from the vehicle, being driven by co- 5 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) accused Lakhan, Rahul and Prem Pal, as per prosecution case, were also travelling in same vehicle.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that after dismissal of bail application of co-accused Lakhan, but during pendency of present petition, the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.7.2023, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023, titled as Rabi Prakash versus The State of Odisha, has enlarged an accused on bail, in identical circumstances, having been found in possession of 247 kgs Ganja from the Truck in which he was travelling, on the ground of delay in trial, and, therefore, irrespective of dismissal of earlier Bail Application, the petitioner is entitled to file present application for enlarging him on bail. 11 It has been further stated that co-accused Praveen, Lal Chand and Ranjeet Bhardwaj have been enlarged on bail, vide orders dated 26.02.2022 and 30.08.2022, passed in their respective Bail Applications No. 426 of 2022, 1427 and 1454 of 2022 and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for bail. 12 It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date 4 witnesses have been examined. It has been contended that in case of Rabi Prakash supra, one bold witness had already been examined and accused was in custody 6 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) for more than 11 months and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for bail on the same analogy. 13 It has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent that petitioner was absconding at the time of filing of complaint as despite serving of notice, he did not join the investigation. However, on the basis of statement of co-accused, he was arrayed as accused in challan presented by Investigating Agency on 22nd March, 2021 and thereafter, petitioner remained absconding and could be arrested only on 16.5.2024 when it came in the notice of Investigating Agency that petitioner had been arrested by Haryana Police in a case registered at Ambala and was lodged in Ambala Jail. 14 Though petitioner is not entitled for parity for enlarging him on bail like other co-accused persons, who were arrested prior to the filing of complaint, however, it is also apt to record that though petitioner was stated to be absconding but nothing material has been placed before me to substantiate this plea. Even it is also not informed that till his arrest, what steps were taken by Investigating Agency to declare the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender, if he was not available. Therefore, plea of respondent that petitioner was absconding is not substantiated from the record. 7 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) 15 It has been submitted on behalf of respondent that it has come in investigation that Prem Pal was not aware about transportation of contraband recovered from vehicle and, therefore, he was not arrayed as an accused whereas Rahul was found to be Juvenile and, therefore, separate proceedings have been initiated against him before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur and he has been enlarged on bail and his case cannot be equated with the case of petitioner who is major and was having the control on the vehicle wherefrom contraband was recovered. 16 So far as enlargement of Praveen, Lal Chand and Ranjeet Bhardwaj is concerned, those co-accused have been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and Call Detail Records and, therefore, they were enlarged on bail on different grounds, particularly, on account of pronouncement of Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.242 of 2022, tilted as State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta & another, whereas petitioner has been arrested for recovery of contraband from vehicle occupied by him. Therefore, circumstances of the present petitioner are not identical to Praveen, Lal Chand and Ranjeet Bhardwaj. 8 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) 17 The facts in Rabi Prakash’s case appear to be identical to present case, wherein it has been recorded and ordered as under: “2. The prosecution case appears to be that the police party while on patrolling duty on 02.10.2019 at about

12.30 p.m. on Nandapur-Semiliguda road MDR-55, spotted one full body twelve wheeler Truck (Eicher) bearing No.EB-13-BD-5753 coming from Nandapur side at a high speed and accordingly they chased and detained the truck at Bodenga Chhak and found three persons boarded in the said truck including the driver. Eventually, 247 kg. Ganja was recovered from the truck. The petitioner was one of the occupants of the truck and was arrested at the spot. He has been in custody for more than three and a half years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.

3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time. As regard to the twin conditions contained in 4. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 9 ( 2025:HHC:9430 )

5. However, we find some merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent – State that the petitioner being not a resident of the State of Orissa, some stringent conditions are required to be imposed upon him.

6. Consequently, while directing that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, it is directed that he shall be required to produce two local sureties before the Trial Court. The petitioner shall also appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing. In case he absents himself, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him today by this Court. Ordered accordingly.” 18 Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that quantity of contraband recovered in present case is of commercial quantity and, thus, petitioner, who is involved in commission of heinous crime which is affecting not only the individuals and their families, but also the society at large, is not entitled for bail. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash’s case, petitioner is entitled for bail. 19 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in view of order passed by the Supreme Court in Pallulabid Ahamad Arimuttta’s case, the Call Details Record cannot be made basis to reject the bail application and this fact is yet to be proved by prosecution in trial and it has been contended that other persons namely Praveen, Lal Chand and Ranjeet Bhardwaj, 10 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) made co-accused on the basis of such evidence, have already been enlarged on bail. 20 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish personal bond and surety bonds of local person as well of a relative and also undertakes to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by the Court, in case of his release on bail, to assure his presence during trial. 21 Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, but, without commenting on merits of the rival contentions of the parties, and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Courts, including Supreme Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case, at this stage. 22 Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in present case, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties, one of which shall be local surety and the other shall of a relative, as undertaken by the petitioner, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Trial Court, 11 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to assure presence of petitioners/accused at the time of trial: (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required, as per law; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial; (iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected; (v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner; (vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail; (vii) that the petitioner shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial; (viii)the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court. (ix) The petitioner shall not be released in case he has not been enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 6 in Police Station Maheshnagar, District Amabala on 5th January, 2023 registered 12 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) 2023 and also if he is required in detention in another criminal case. 23 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 24 In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. 25 Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 26 Observations made hereinbefore shall not affect merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify 13 ( 2025:HHC:9430 ) the order from the High Court website or otherwise. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. April 07, 2025 (ms) (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge