Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sumit Khajuria – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 aw
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
