The court granted bail based on the presumption of innocence, noting that the quantity of contraband did not invoke stricter bail provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant Sudarshan 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. 2 of 2025, dated 2.1.2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P.

2. The applicant has pleaded 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. It is the further case of the applicant that he has been arrested in the above noted case by the Police, for allegedly possessing 13 grams heroin/chitta. Investigation is stated to be completed, in the present case.

4. The applicant has asserted that he is permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the application.

5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application No. 26 of 2025, before the Court of learned Special Judge-I, District Kullu H.P., however, the same was dismissed, on 15.3.2025.

6. 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.

7. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

7.1. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 2.1.2025, HC Tarun Kumar No. 22, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime and picketing, in their private vehicle. At about 5:32 p.m., they left the Police Station and when, they were on patrolling, then, at about 7:30 p.m., the Police party was present at the place known as ‘4 Line Bridge’, and it noticed a person coming from Jhiri side and moving towards Gadsa. On seeing the police party, he turned back and while doing so, he took out a carry bag out of jeans worn by him, containing a small packet and threw the same. The said fact was noticed by the Police in the head light of the vehicle, upon which, the I.O. with the help of police officials, nabbed him.

7.2 Thereafter, the I.O. inquired from the said person about the small packet, upon which, he could not give any satisfactory reply. As such, the I.O developed suspicion that the said carry bag might be having some illegal thing. Thereafter, he deputed HC Vijay Kumar No.489 to look for the independent witnesses from Bajaura side. Consequently, HC Vijay Kumar met two persons. The aforesaid persons, namely, Mohd. Ali and Ashraf Ali were requested to be the witnesses. In the presence of the aforesaid persons, name of the suspected person was inquired. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Sudarshan (applicant).

7.3 It has been mentioned in the status report that thereafter, the carry bag thrown by the applicant was opened. On opening the same, it was found containing a white coloured substance, in a small packet. With the help of drug detection kit, the same was checked and it was found to be heroin/chitta. On weighment of the same, it was found to be 13 grams.

7.4 After registration of the FIR, accused (applicant) was arrested. Positive report has been received from the SFSL, Junga. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the competent court of law, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu.

7.5 It has further been mentioned in the status report that apart from the said case, another case bearing No. 64 of 2022, dated 3.4.2022, under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, has been found to have been registered against the applicant.

7.6 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.

9. Contraband, allegedly recovered, in the present case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable to