Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Saurabh @ Charu - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 648 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 25, and 29 - Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Applicant claimed innocence and was falsely implicated - Previous bail application dismissed - Contraband recovered does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 does not apply - Investigation complete, no further interrogation required - Presumption of innocence remains - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 13, 14)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail applications - Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; it is to be granted unless there are compelling reasons against it. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested on 24.1.2025, with 13.670 grams of chitta and a substantial amount of currency found on his motorcycle. He claimed innocence and no prior cases were registered against him. (Paras 1, 7.5, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the contraband did not fall under commercial quantity, and the applicant was not required for further interrogation, thus justifying bail. (Paras 8, 10, 13)
Issues: The main issues were the applicant's innocence, the nature of the contraband, and whether the conditions for bail were met. (Paras 1, 8, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a punitive measure and that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Saurabh @ Charu has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 34 of 2025, dated 24.1.2025, registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever with the offence, for which, he has been arrested, by the police.
3. The applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application No. 51-NL/22 of 2025, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 25.2.2025.
4. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail.
5. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 24.1.2025, ASI Ranjeet Singh, I/C Special Cell-X Baddi telephonically informed the Police that a place known as ‘Vardhman’ near Shiv Mandir, he has nabbed a person with chitta. As such, he requested to send the second I.O., upon which, ASI Rajesh Kumar, alongwith other police officials, reached at the spot.
7.1 Thereafter, ASI Ranjeet Singh in the ruqua got mentioned that he alongwith other police officials had left the Police Station for patrolling duty, at about 2:25 p.m., he received secret information, regarding indulgence of Saurabh Kumar and Naveen Kumar, in the business of Chitta. According to the information, the aforesaid persons were travelling on motorcycle, bearing No. HP 12M-1645, and in case, they are nabbed, chitta can be recovered from them.
7.2 As per the I.O., in case of delay, contraband could be removed from there, as such, he has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.
7.3 As per the status report, independent witnesses were associated in the raiding party, and they were apprised about the secret information, which, the I.O. had received.
7.4 Thereafter, these two persons, who were standing near motorcycle No. HP12M-1645, were nabbed. The I.O., as well as, other police officials had given their personal identification and also apprised them about the secret information.
7.5 On inquiry, one person disclosed his name as Saurabh Kumar (applicant) and the other person disclosed his name as Naveen Kumar. The motorcycle was searched. During search of the motorcycle, currency notes of Rs. 44270/-, in the shape of 29 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-, 30 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 200, 177 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/-, 60 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 50/-, 81 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 20/ and 145 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 10/- were found. Apart from the aforesaid currency notes, 13.670 grams chitta was also recovered from the motorcycle.
7.6 After completing the codal formalities, FIR was registered and both the accused persons were arrested. Contraband, alongwith currency notes was taken into possession.
7.7 After completion of investigation, Police has filed charge-sheet, on 22.3.2025, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (POCSO), Solan.
7.8 Apart from the present case, no other case is found to have been registered against the applicant.
7.9 Lastly, it has been apprehended that in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, he may again indulge in same activities.
7.10 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.
8. Contraband, allegedly recovered, in the present case does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and non-commercial quantity of contraband allows for bail under NDPS Act.
Bail should not be denied as punishment before trial; completion of investigation and absence of commercial quantity justify granting bail.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail may be granted when the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, ensuring the applicant's rights are protected.
The court ruled that the contraband did not constitute 'commercial quantity', thus allowing bail under reasonable conditions despite the applicant's criminal history.
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.
The court granted bail based on the presumption of innocence, noting that the quantity of contraband did not invoke stricter bail provisions.
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.
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.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
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
