Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sumit Khajuria - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 375 of 2025
Decided on : 05-05-2025.
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 22 and Section 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1160 capsules of Puroxowin Spas - Investigation complete, trial not commenced for over one and a half years - Petitioner claims innocence and violation of right to speedy trial - Respondent opposes bail citing commercial quantity and prior criminal antecedents - Court emphasizes the necessity of satisfying twin conditions under Section 37 for bail in commercial quantity cases. (Paras 1 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 17 , 24 )
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must ensure that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. (Paras 7 , 10 , 12 , 23 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested with a significant quantity of narcotics, and despite the claim of innocence and delay in trial, the court found no grounds to grant bail due to the nature of the offence and prior criminal history.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the application for bail was dismissed. The court noted the seriousness of the offence and the potential threat to society posed by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could be granted bail despite the commercial quantity of drugs and prior criminal antecedents, and the implications of trial delays on the right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the twin conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 126 of 2023, dated 27.7.2023, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P. It was asserted that as per the prosecution case, the police party apprehended the petitioner with a bag containing 1160 capsules of Puroxowin Spas. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed before the Court. One case under the ND&PS Act was registered against the petitioner. More than one year and six months have elapsed, and the trial has not commenced. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 27.7.2023. They found one person in a suspicious condition near the Sunehar Bridge. He got frightened after seeing the police and started running away. He threw the backpack in the bushes while running. Police apprehended him, and he identified himself as Sumit Khajuria (the present petitioner). The police checked the backpack in the presence of an independent witness and recovered 1160 capsules. The police seized the capsules and arrested the petitioner. Capsules were sent to FSL. The report of analysis shows that the total weight of capsules was 627.560 grams, and the total weight of powder was 438 grams. The capsules of Proxyvon contained Tramadol. FIR No. 32 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Hiranagar, District Kathua, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the ND&PS Act. The matter is now fixed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 4.8.2025.
3. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The trial has not commenced for the last one and a half years, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of MD Tjiur Rahman @ Tajiur Rahman Vs. State of West Bengal , Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12225 of 2024, Tilak Raj Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:2996and Mohan Kumar and another Vs. State of H.P. , Cr.MP(M) Nos. 586 and 816 of 2022 , in support of his submission.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the matter is now listed for recording of prosecution witnesses on 4.8.2025 and 6.8.2025. The quantity of the capsules found in possession of the petitioner was commercial, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail unless he satisfies the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -
“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 discr
The court emphasized that bail in narcotics cases involving commercial quantities requires satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, focusing on the accused's guilt and likeli....
Bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions: the accused must not be guilty and not likely to commit further offences while on bail.
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of stringent conditions, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases denied absent court satisfaction of twin Section 37 conditions, even with prolonged incarceration or trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious pos....
Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as petitioner failed Section 37 twin conditions despite prolonged custody and trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession.
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions mandatory for bail; trial delay or incarceration alone insufficient grounds.
The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act unless conditions of proving innocence and minimal risk of reoffending are met, regardless of trial delays.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
