IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Sahil Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.763 of 2025
Decided on : 05-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 29-61-85 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail during trial for possession of 5.30 gms of heroin, claiming false implication and completed investigation - Previous bail application dismissed - Co-accused released on bail - Police opposed bail citing potential for re-offending - Court found no commercial quantity involved, thus Section 37 not applicable - Presumption of innocence upheld, and judicial custody deemed unnecessary - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1 - 19 )
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The applicant must attend trial, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India without permission. (Paras 19 )
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Sahil Sharma has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.201 of 2024, dated 24.11.2024, registered under Sections 21, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in the present case and has been arrested by the police with allegedly possessing 5.30 gms of chitta/heroin and he has termed the case as false and connected one.
3. As per applicant, the investigation is complete and according to him, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody.
4. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2025.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that even, on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as his co-accused, namely Naisha Arora, has already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 05.03.2025, passed in CrMP(M) No.215 of 2025, titled as ‘Naisha Arora Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 24.11.2024, HC Viraj Sharma (Investigating Officer), Police Station, Kangra, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty, as well as, the duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics.
8.1. It is the further case of the police that at about 11:00 pm, at a place known as Ghat Purana Kangra, near Hanuman Temple, he has put the picketing to check the vehicles. When, he was checking vehicles No.HP01-DA-4506 and HP37-A-1250, then, he noticed that a car, being driven by its driver, came from Samela side, to which, he gave signal to stop. Consequently, the said vehicle was stopped on the left side of the road. The registration number of the vehicle was found to be HR21-R-1523 make Baleno. Apart from the driver, a lady was also found, sitting in the said car.
8.2. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, on enquiry, driver of the car disclosed his name as Sahil Sharma (applicant), whereas, the lady, sitting on the co- passenger seat, disclosed her name as Naisha Arora. Both of them have introduced themselves as a couple. Thereafter, the driver of the car was directed to show the requisite papers and also to open the boot of the vehicle for checking, upon which, driver, as well as, the said lady got perplexed and driver disclosed that they had obtained the vehicle on rent from Kharar (Punjab) and they could not show any requisite documents.
8.3. It is the further case of the police that when, the driver of the car shown his inability to produce any requisite documents, then, Investigating Officer developed suspicion upon them and in order to search the vehicle, he had called Suman Verma, Panch, Ward No.2, MC Kangra and Anil Kumar, R/o Old Kangra and requested them to come present at the spot, upon which, both of them reached at the spot. Both were associated in the investigation of the case. During the search of the vehicle, granule shaped substance was found, which, on checking, on drug detection kit, was found to be 5.30 grams of heroin/chitta and the same was taken into possession. Other codal formalities were complete
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite multiple cases against the applicant, and bail is granted as the quantity of contraband does not constitute 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Ac....
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
The presumption of innocence remains until conviction, and bail may be granted based on parity with co-accused and absence of commercial quantity of contraband.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is inapplicable, and the presumption of in....
The court established that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, and bail should not be denied based on prior unconvicted allegations, especially when no commercial quantity of narcotics i....
The court granted bail based on the presumption of innocence, noting that the quantity of contraband did not invoke stricter bail provisions.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
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.