IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Gurpreet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.827 of 2025
Decided on : 07-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 29-61-85 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 184 - Arms Act - Sections 25-54-59 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail during trial, asserting innocence and completion of investigation - Previous bail applications were dismissed - Co-accused released on bail - Court found that contraband did not meet commercial quantity, thus Section 37 NDPS Act not applicable - Presumption of innocence upheld - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 17, 18)
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-Gurpreet Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.368 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024, registered under Sections 21, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) and Section 25-54- 59 of the Arms Act, with Police Station Una, District Una, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and wrongly arrested in the above-noted case. According to him, he has nothing to do with the offences, for which, he has been arrested by the police. Investigation of the case is stated to be completed.
3. As per the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024.
3.1. Thereafter, the applicant had moved bail application, bearing CrMP(M) No.371 of 2025, before this Court. However, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 20.03.2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that even, on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as his co-accused, namely Anu, has already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 20.03.2025, passed in CrMP(M) No.372 of 2025, titled as ‘Anu Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’.
5. Applicant has pleaded that FIR, under Section 326 of IPC, FIR No.25/24, under Section 25 of Arms Act and FIR No.30/22, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, have been registered against him.
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 11.11.2024, HC Kamal Dev, along with other police officials, had left the Police Station for night patrolling duty. They had led a picketing near the railway crossing at Kotla Kalan for checking the drunken driving.
8.1. It is the case of the police that at about 09:40 pm, IO noticed one car, being driven by its driver, coming from Bangana to Una side, upon which, signal to stop was given and on seeing the police party there, at the spot, driver of the said vehicle, all of a sudden, reversed his vehicle and tried to flee away from the spot. However, due to heavy traffic, he could not do so. As such, the said vehicle was intercepted by the police. Registration number of the car was found to be PB10-FC-9634, make i20.
8.2. Subsequently, another vehicle No.HP20-H-5726, make Swift, also reached at the spot. Name of the driver and other occupant of the said vehicle was enquired, who had disclosed their name as Deep Singh and Varun Bhardwaj. Both of them were associated in the investigation of the case and thereafter, name of driver of car bearing registration No.PB10-FC-9634 was enquired, who disclosed his name as Anu S/o Balvir and the person, sitting next to him, disclosed his name as Gurpreet Singh (applicant).
8.3. Thereafter, the said car was searched and during search, an iron khanda (a religious symbol of Sikh) was found, length of which was found to be 36 inches and length of edge of the same was found to be 29 inches. Apart from this, from the dashboard of the vehicle, chitta, weighing 32 gms, was also recovered. Other codal formalities were completed.
8.4. Thereafter, the FIR in question has been registered. Both the accused persons were arrested.
8.5. The contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL, Jun
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
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 court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Bail should not be denied as punishment before trial; completion of investigation and absence of commercial quantity justify granting bail.
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....
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 court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
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 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.
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.