IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Jai Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.792 of 2025
Decided on : 05-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail during trial for alleged involvement in drug-related offenses - Previous bail applications were dismissed - Police report indicated ongoing investigation and prior cases against applicant - Court found no conviction in prior cases and ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender - The contraband involved did not meet the definition of commercial quantity, thus Section 37's rigors were not applicable - Bail granted based on parity with co-accused who were released on bail. (Paras 1 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
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-Jai Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.217 of 2024, dated 13.09.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case and has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
3. As per applicant, the story of the prosecution is highly doubtful. The applicant has also pleaded the fact that except the present case, two other cases have been registered against him, being FIR No.27/2023, registered with Police Station Hindwada, Punjab, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and FIR No.151/2024, registered with Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 26.11.2024.
5.1. Thereafter, applicant had also tried his luck by moving similar applications, before the Court of learned Special Judge, District Kullu, H.P. However, the same were dismissed vide orders dated 24.12.2024 and 26.03.2025, respectively.
6. Apart from this, learned counsel, 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 13.09.2024, ASI Jagdish Chand, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime, relating to narcotics.
8.1. It is the case of the police that on the same day, at about 04:45 pm, when, IO was present, along with other police official, at a place known as Parla at Bhuntar near Gurudwara, then, he received a secret information regarding the fact that near old bridge, in the house of Pankaj Sharma S/o Hari Prakash, one person from Punjab is coming, along with chitta, to deliver the same to Suman Kumar, who is tenant and Jai Singh (applicant) will come to purchase chitta.
8.2. As per the informant, if the ground floor of the house of said Pankaj Sharma is raided, then, large quantity of chitta could be recovered from there. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable and according to the IO, in case, he would have made efforts to obtain authorization letter of search warrant, in that eventuality, there were chances that the contraband could be removed from there. As such, he has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to the SDPO, Manali, through L. Ct. Dayawanti.
8.3. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, IO has proceeded towards the house of Pankaj Sharma. When, he reached near the old bridge, then, two persons met him, namely Jeevan Sharma, S/o Bale Ram and Pawan Kumar, S/o Dhale Ram, who were associated in the team as independent witnesses and in their presence, room in the ground floor of the house of Pankaj Sharma was knocked. However, the door was found to be not locked from inside. When, no one responded, the IO opened the door and noticed that three persons were sitting on the bed and consuming chitta. On enquiry, they have disclosed their names as Suman Kumar, S/o Chabi Lal, R/o Rauli, PO Thela, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Jai Singh, S/o Maan Singh, R/o Sharan PO Rella, Teh
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
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 absence of 'commercial quantity' in drug possession negates the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail and preserving the presumption of innocence.
Concealment of prior criminal cases disqualifies an applicant from bail under the NDPS Act, despite the completion of the investigation.
The court emphasized that mere registration of cases does not classify an individual as a habitual offender without convictions, and highlighted the necessity for accurate police records regarding ac....
The court emphasized that the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The court emphasized the need for full disclosure of prior offenses in bail applications, balancing individual liberty with societal safety.
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....
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.