IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of stringent conditions, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ND&PS Act’), vide FIR No. 15 of 2023, dated 3.3.2023, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was found in possession of charas weighing 2.603 kilograms. The police have cited 26 witnesses, however, the statements of only four witnesses have been recorded. One independent witness, Tajender, has turned hostile. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 3.3.2023. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He 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 had set up a Naka near Dhaman bridge on 2.3.2023 at 9.45 PM. They stopped the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-7535 at 10.15 PM. The driver identified himself as Sanju (the present petitioner). He tried to move a bag with his feet. The police became suspicious and searched the vehicle in the presence of two independent witnesses. The police recovered 2.603 kilograms of charas during the search. As per the report of analysis, the exhibit was found to be charas having 30.14% w/w resin in it. Out of 26 prosecution witnesses, the statements of six witnesses have been recorded. The matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 17.5.2025.

3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has examined six witnesses as per the status report in two years. One witness has turned hostile. The right to speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that he is involved in the commission of a serious offence. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The rigours of Section 37 apply to the present case and the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS 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 discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. 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(