IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 128 of 2026.

Reserved on: 24.02.2026.

Date of Decision:02_.03.2026

Arvinder Singh @ Billa ...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 Vikram Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Dy. A.G.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking

regular bail in F.I.R. No. 120 of 2025, dated 19.08.2025, registered in

Police Station Dhalli, Shimla, District Shimla, H. P., for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the

police were on patrolling duty on 19.08.2025 in the vicinity of the

1

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

2

Dhalli area. They received a secret information at about 3.25 a.m.

that Sunil Kumar, Arvinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh were present

in a vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01D-2378, which was

parked near the rear gate of Sacred Heart School. They were in

possession of a contraband substance which could be recovered by

their search. The police joined the independent witness and

reached the spot, where the car was found parked. The person

sitting in the driver’s seat identified himself as Gurpreet Singh. The

person sitting on the front seat identified himself as Arvinder Singh,

and the person sitting on the rear seat identified himself as Sunil

Kumar. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 29.840 grams

of heroin kept beneath the foot mat of the rear seat. The police

seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The

quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police is

intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not

apply to the present case. The police have filed the charge sheet.

No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in

custody. The recovery was effected from beneath the foot mat of

the rear seat, and the petitioner was not in possession of the

3

heroin. Gurpreet Singh has been enlarged on bail by the Court

vide order dated 24.11.2025, passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2676 of 2025,

and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The

petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 35 of 2018. FIR No. 20 of 2025

and 29 of 2023 are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner

belongs to a respectable family, and there is no chance of his

absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that

the Court may impose upon him. Hence, it is prayed that the

present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report,

asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 19.08.2025.

They received a secret information at about 3:25 am that a vehicle

bearing registration No. PB-01D-2378 was transporting heroin, and

a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered during its search. The

information was credible. It was reduced to writing and was sent to

the Supervisory Officer. The police joined Gopal Sharma and went

towards the place where the vehicle was parked. The police found

three people present in the vehicle. The driver identified himself as

Gurpreet Singh, the person sitting on the front seat identified

4

himself as Arvinder Singh, and the person sitting on the rear seat

identified himself as Sunil Kumar. The police gave their search to

the occupants of the vehicle and searched the vehicle. The police

recovered a transparent polythene kept beneath the foot mat of the

rear seat. The police checked the polythene packet and recovered

29.840 grams of heroin. The police seized the vehicle and the heroin

and arrested the occupants. The heroin was sent to SFSL, Junga,

and as per the result, it indicated the presence of Diacetylmorphine

(heroin). The call detail records were obtained, and the occupants

were found to be in touch with each other. The charge sheet has

been filed before the Court, and the matter is listed on 07.03.2026

for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The

petitioner is a resident of a different State, who is likely to abscond

in case of his release on bail. The petitioner was convicted in FIR

No. 35 of 2018. FIR Nos. 29 of 2023 and 20 of 2025 are pending

against the petitioner before the Courts. The petitioner would

indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release

on bail. Heroin harms society, and no leniency should be shown to

the petitioner. Hence, the status report.

5

4. I have heard Mr Vikram Thakur, Advocate, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Dy.

Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Vikram Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely

implicated. As per the prosecution, the recovery was effected from

the packet kept beneath the foot mat of the rear seat. The

petitioner was not in possession of the heroin. The co-accused has

been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the

principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition

be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Dy. Advocate General for the

respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in

possession of heroin, which affects the young generation adversely.

The petitioner was also involved in the commission of a similar

offence in the past, and he was convicted by the competent Court.

The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence

in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

6

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 Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC

314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1

SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating

on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in

the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has

laid down the key factors that should be considered while

granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244,

paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the

vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also perti-

nent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if

convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon

the issue.

8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice

would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdic-

tion of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick De-

vlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford Uni-

versity Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review,

Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court

considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with

witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the

process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in

this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is

applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, partic-

7

ularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit se-

rious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part

of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has

enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further

crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the ba-

sis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is

therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis sup-

plied)

57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4

SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various

aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing

with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted

as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)

“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the

basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circum-

stances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While

granting the 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, behaviour, means and standing 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 tam-

pered with, the larger interests of the public or State and

similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind

that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has

used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of

“the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant

of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a

genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution

will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the

charge.” (emphasis supplied)

58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,

(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through

Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in

8

matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In

highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of

course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as

follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,

however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judi-

cious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for

bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Need-

less to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent

upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by

the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While

the placement of the accused in society, though it may be

considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter

of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with

other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature

of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant

of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the

chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent

on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)

59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC

528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is

established that a court considering a bail application can-

not undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an

elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court

is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the

grant of bail.

60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14

SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that

where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said

order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind,

rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to

the circumstances under which an order granting bail may

be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have

guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been de-

tailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)

9

“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere

with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting

bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon

the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cau-

tiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles

laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the

point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the

factors to be borne in mind while considering an application

for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground

to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if re-

leased on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of

the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being in-

fluenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant

of bail.” (emphasis supplied)

xxxxxxx

62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of ap-

plication of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of

discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused

is  Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2

SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court,

while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu

Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and

Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of

the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as fol-

lows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :

(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)

10

“35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an indi-

vidual is an invaluable right, at the same time while consid-

ering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the

serious nature of the accusations against an accused and

the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when

the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in

nature but are supported by adequate material brought on

record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie con-

clusion. While considering an application for the grant of

bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons

and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts

of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be

given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal

antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punish-

ment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s)

alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

9. The present petition has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. The status report mentions that the petitioner was

found sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle bearing registration

No. PB-01D-2378, from which the recovery of 29.84 grams of heroin

was effected. All the occupants were residents of Punjab and were

found at Shimla in the vehicle during the night. The petitioner has

not provided any explanation about his presence in the vehicle at

Shimla. In Madan Lal versus State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: 2003

SCC (Cri) 1664: 2003 SCC OnLineSC 874 , the contraband was

11

recovered from a vehicle, and it was held that all the occupants of

the vehicle would be in conscious possession of the contraband. It

was observed:

“19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be

determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts

which can be culled out from the evidence on record are

that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, and

as noted by the trial court, they were known to each other,

and it has not been explained or shown as to how they

travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle

which was not a public vehicle.

20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an

offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act, which

relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is

submitted that to make the possession illicit, there must be

conscious possession.

21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled

with the requisite mental element, i.e., conscious possession

and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of

such possession, Section 20 is not attracted.

22. The expression “possession” is a polymorphous term

which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may

carry different meanings in contextually different

backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in the Supdt.

& Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B.  v. Anil Kumar

Bhunja [(1979) 4 SCC 274: 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038: AIR 1980 SC

52] to work out a completely logical and precise definition of

“possession” uniformly applicable to all situations in the

context of all statutes.

23. The word “conscious” means awareness of a particular

fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.

12

24. As noted in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 194:

1972 SCC (Cri) 678: AIR 1972 SC 1756], possession in a given

case need not be physical possession but can be

constructive, having power and control over the article in

the case in question, while the person to whom physical

possession is given holds it subject to that power or control.

25. The word “possession” means the legal right to

possession (see Heath v. Drown [(1972) 2 All ER 561: 1973 AC

498: (1972) 2 WLR 1306 (HL)] ). In an interesting case, it was

observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his

mother's flat, which is safer than his own home, he must be

considered to be in possession of the same.

(See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness [(1976) 1 All ER 844: 1976

QB 966: (1976) 2 WLR 361 (QBD)].)

26. Once possession is established, the person who claims

that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it

because how he came to be in possession is within his

special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory

recognition of this position because of the presumption

available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54,

where a presumption is also available to be drawn from

possession of illicit articles.

27. In the factual scenario of the present case, not only

possession but conscious possession has been established.

It has not been shown by the accused-appellants that the

possession was not conscious in the logical background of

Sections 35 and 54 of the Act.”

11. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner was in possession

of the charas.

12. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered

from the possession of the petitioner is less than a commercial

13

quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply

to the present case.

13. It was submitted that, as per the prosecution, an

intermediate quantity of heroin was found in the vehicle, and the

petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. This submission is

not acceptable. 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,

putting the 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

the law, 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 in contact 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.

14

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.”

14. Similarly, it was held in Bunty Yadav v. State of H.P.,

2022 SCC OnLine HP 4996, that the bail cannot be claimed as a

matter of right even though the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS

Act do not apply to a case. 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

fall under 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 the petitioner. 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,

putting the future generation as well as the prospects of

future nation-building into serious peril.”

15. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union

of India v Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) 9792/2025, decided

15

on 07.11.2025, that there is a concerning increase in drug abuse

amongst the youth. It was observed: -

8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance abuse

has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty-

first century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug

trafficking and addiction have become pervasive. The United

Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported in its

2025 World Drug Report that “As at 2023, some 316 million

people worldwide had used drugs in the past year,

representing an increase over the past decade that outpaces

population growth, which indicates a higher prevalence of

drug use.”

9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug

abuse among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects

individuals, families, and communities but also undermines

various aspects of health, including physical, social, political,

and cultural foundations, and mental well-being. (See:

“Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S, Grover A, Saleem SM,

Kushwaha P. The lingering menace of drug abuse among

the Indian youth–it’s time for action. Indian J Community

Med 2025;50:S9-12, published on 17th April, 2025”)

10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear

dilemma between tackling the narcotics crisis systematically

or sacrificing its most valuable resource, i.e. its young

people. The extent of menace of drug abuse has also been

highlighted by this Court in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor

v. National Investigation Agency, (2025) 5 SCC 155, wherein

this Court has observed as under:

“9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the

length and breadth of our country, with the Central

and every State Government fighting against the

menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact

of the drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and

16

serious concern for India. As the globe grapples with

the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders

(“SUD”) and an ever accessible drug market, the

consequences leave a generational Page 75 of 84

imprint on public health and even national security.

Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the

State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and

the standard of living of its people and the

improvement of public health as among its primary

duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to

bring about prohibition of the consumption except for

medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of

drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a

responsibility to address the root causes of this

predicament and develop effective intervention

strategies to ensure that India’s younger population,

which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is

protected and saved from such a menace. This is

particularly because substance abuse is linked to

social problems and can contribute to child

maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property

crime in a family.”

16. Hence, the petitioner cannot be released on bail merely

because the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to

the present case.

17. The status report mentions that the police had

recovered 29.840 grams of heroin, which is a huge quantity and

could not have been meant for self-consumption. The quantity of

heroin stated to have been recovered from the possession of the

17

petitioner would disentitle him from the bail at this stage, even

though it is intermediate.

18. It was submitted that the co-accused has been released

on bail; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle

of parity. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2584, that a person cannot be released on bail after

applying the principle of parity without examining his role. It was

observed:

“14. What flows from the above judgments, which have been

referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that

the High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole

ground on which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is

the correct position in law. The word ‘parity’ is defined by

the Cambridge Dictionary as “equality, especially of pay or

position.” When weighing an application on parity, it is the

‘position’ that is the clincher. The requirement of ‘position’ is

not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position

means what the person whose application is being weighed,

his position in crime, i.e., his role, etc. There can be different

roles played - someone part of a large group, intending to

intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws

hands at the other side, instigated by such words spoken by

another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete -

parity of these people will be with those who have

performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part

of the group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the

18

gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at the

opposer's limbs with a weapon.”

19. The status report shows that the petitioner has criminal

antecedents, and one FIR was lodged against him. The co-accused

was not involved in the commission of any offence, and the

petitioner cannot claim parity with him.

20. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court

dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents while granting bail

in Champa vs. State of H.P.: 2025:HHC:28899 and held that the

criminal antecedents would disentitle an accused from the

concession of bail, especially when an FIR was registered against

the accused related to the commission of a similar offence. This

judgment was unsuccessfully assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in SLP(Criminal) 19120 of 2025 titled Champa Devi vs State of

H.P., decided on 27.11.2025. Therefore, the relevance of criminal

antecedents cannot be ignored.

21. No other point was urged.

22. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to

bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

19

23. 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

02 March, 2026

(jai)