IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Danveer Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.643 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application filed by the applicant during trial for alleged possession of contraband - The contraband does not constitute 'commercial quantity', thus Section 37's rigors are not applicable - Investigation is complete and no further custodial interrogation is required - Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law. (Paras 1 , 4 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 )
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The applicant must regularly attend trial, not tamper with evidence, and not leave the country without permission - Observations made are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Paras 21 , 22 )
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-Danveer Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.116 of 2024, dated 26.11.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case.
3. It has been averred in the application that the contraband, allegedly shown to be recovered, in this case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, according to him, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case.
4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and nothing is stated to be recovered from the applicant or at his instance.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2025.
6. Apart from this, Ms. Deeksha Thakur, 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 ASI Harnam Singh, I/O PS Gaggal, has submitted a ruqqa to the Police Station, mentioning therein that on 25.11.2024, he was on patrolling duty. At about 11:20 pm, on that day, on Rajol to Ansui road, he had parked his vehicle on the side of the road. At that time, IO was enquiring from Harshit Siphiya, S/o Pushmender Singh and Kapil, S/o Mehar Chand. Meanwhile, he noticed two persons coming from Rasol side and focus of the search light was put upon them, on which, they tried to turn back.
8.1. It is the case of the police that thereafter, one person, out of the said two persons, had thrown away some article out of his trousers. IO noticed the said fact and got preserved the said thrown away article and the said two persons were nabbed. On enquiry, the person, who had thrown away the article from his trousers, disclosed his name as Akashdeep Singh, whereas, the other person disclosed his name as Danveer Singh (applicant).
9. Thereafter, when, the article, thrown away by accused Akashdeep Singh, was checked, the same was found to be chitta/heroin, which, on weighment, was found to be 12.63 gms. Other codal formalities were completed.
10. Thereafter, the FIR in question has been registered and both accused persons were arrested.
11. Subsequently, the contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL Junga, for chemical analysis, after complying with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and positive report has been received.
12. As per the status report, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the charge-sheet has been submitted on 22.01.2025, in the Court of learned Special Judge, Dharamshala, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dharamshala and the case is now stated to be listed on 02.04.2025 for COC.
13. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.
14. In this case, admittedly, the contraband, allegedly stated to have been recovered, does not fall, within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case.
15. Once, it has been held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in that eventuality, the presumption of innocence is still available to the applicant, as the bail application
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not meet the definition of 'commercial quantity', and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
The court ruled that possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics does not invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail based on the presumption of innocence.
The court ruled that the contraband did not constitute 'commercial quantity', thus allowing bail under reasonable conditions despite the applicant's criminal history.
The court ruled that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the absence of commercial quantity in the contraband case.
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
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 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....
Bail cannot be denied based on punishment; presumption of innocence prevails unless proven guilty, especially when the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite the registration of a case, and bail is granted when the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
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.