HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Harshdeep Thakur and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 2602 and 2725 of 2025
Decided on 23.1.2026
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 read with Sections 20, 25 and 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Bail application – Seizure of Charas – No person accused of an offence involving trade in a commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Petitioners were prima facie found in possession of commercial quantity of Charas – There is nothing on record to show that they would not indulge in commission of offence if released on bail – They have failed to satisfy twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of NDPS Act and are not entitled to bail – Petition dismissed. (Paras 20, 22 and 28)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking regular bail, in FIR No. 216 of 2024, dated 25.11.2024, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Since both the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 25.11.2024 near Tapowan near Vidhan Sabha Chinmay Ashram. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01D-8971. Another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-5202 reached the spot, whose driver tried to reverse it after seeing the police. The police intercepted the vehicle. The driver revealed his name as Anshuman. The person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Harshdeep Thakur. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 1108 grams of charas. Anshuman disclosed that charas was supplied by Vicky @ Bango. The police arrested Vicky @ Bango. The petitioners were falsely implicated, and there is no material to connect them to the commission of the crime. The prosecution has cited 16 witnesses, out of whom only three have been examined. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. The police have filed the chargesheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
3. The petitions are opposed by filing separate status reports asserting that the police had set up a naka at Tapowan on 24.11.2024. The police were checking the documents of the vehicles bearing registration No. HP-01D-8971 at about 10:20 am. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-5202 arrived on the spot, whose driver tried to reverse the vehicle after seeing the police. The police became suspicious and stopped the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Anshuman, and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Harshdeep Thakur. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a bag containing 1108 grams of heroin kept near Harshdeep Thakur’s feet. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the charas. FIR No. 62 of 2023 was registered against the petitioner, Anshuman. The chargesheet was filed before the Court, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 09.01.2026. The petitioners would indulge in a similar offence if released on bail. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner Harshdeep Thakur and Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by M/s V.K. Gupta and Shwetima Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner Anshuman, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.
5. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Harshdeep Thakur, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The petitioner was the occupant of the vehicle, which was being driven by Anshuman, and he cannot be connected to the contraband recovered from the vehicle. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Anshuman, submitted that the bag was found near Harshdeep Thakur’s feet, and the petitioner had no concern with it. Section 105 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires that the proceedings be video-graphed and submitted to the Magistrate. These provisions are mandatory. The police failed to co
Bail – No person accused of an offence involving trade in a commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, vehicle passengers prima facie in conscious possession of recovered contraband; bail denied absent satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions: not guilty and unlike....
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as accused failed twin conditions of Section 37: no reasonable grounds to believe not guilty given prima facie conscious possession via concealment attemp....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail denied absent satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions: reasonable grounds believing accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend while on bail.
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of contraband; twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied despite trial delay.
Vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of commercial quantity contraband absent explanation; bail refused as twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied: no reasonable grounds for b....
Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied: reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner guilty of conscious possession and likely to reoffend, sup....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.