The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.

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- Akashdeep 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 the custody of the applicant is no more required by the police.

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. 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 Danveer Singh, has already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 01.04.2025, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.643 of 2025, titled as ‘Danveer Singh versus State of H.P.’.

7. 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.

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

9. 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.

9.1. 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 (applicant), whereas, the other person disclosed his name as Danveer Singh.

10. Thereafter, when, the article, thrown away by accused Akashdeep Singh (applicant), 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.

11. Thereafter, the FIR in question has been registered and both accused persons were arrested.

12. 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.

13. 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, H.P.

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

15. In this case, admittedly, the contraband, allegedly stated to have been recovered, does not fall, within the definition of ‘commerci