Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Abhishek - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1011 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for alleged involvement in drug-related offenses - Investigation complete, no further custodial interrogation required - Contraband recovered does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 does not apply - Presumption of innocence remains as applicant not convicted in previous case - Conditions imposed for bail to ensure attendance and prevent tampering with evidence. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, Abhishek, claims innocence and asserts no evidence links him to the alleged drug offenses. He has a prior case under the NDPS Act but has not been convicted. The police report indicates the investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. (Paras 2, 5, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the applicant is not required for further interrogation, and the contraband does not meet the threshold for commercial quantity, allowing for bail. (Paras 10, 14)
Issues: The main issues addressed include the applicant's presumption of innocence, the nature of the contraband, and the necessity of continued custody. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that mere registration of a case does not negate the presumption of innocence and that the applicant's continued custody is not justified given the circumstances. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: Bail application allowed; applicant ordered to be released on bail with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant Abhishek 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. 216 of 2024, dated 19.10.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, 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. According to the applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and nothing is to be recovered from his possession. All these facts have been pleaded to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the Police.
4. According to the applicant, even in the investigation, nothing has been found against the applicant, as there is no evidence, connecting him with the crime in question.
5. According to the applicant, apart from the present case, one another case has been registered against him, with Police Station, Sadar Mandi, H.P., under the provisions of NDPS Act, bearing FIR No.192 of 2023, dated 3.8.2023.
6. The applicant has earlier tried his luck by moving bail application bearing No. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 96 of 2025, before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, on 7.3.2025.
7. 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.
8. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application:
8.1. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 19.10.2024, Constable Shahid Ali submitted a Ruqua in Police Station, Sadar Mandi, disclosing therein that on 19.10.2024, at about 5:40 a.m., I.O. received a secret information regarding indulgence of Uma Devi @ Mombatti, R/o House No. 294/3, Jail Road Mandi, and her family members, in the business of selling chitta/heroin/smack, in their residential house, and that they have kept the chitta/heroin/smack concealed inside their house and in case, the house of Uma Devi @ Mombatti is searched, then, a large quantity of contraband could be recovered.
8.2 According to the I.O., one day prior to 19.10.2024, he received the information of delivery of large quantity of chitta/heroin/smack to Uma Devi. As such, he has complied with the provisions of Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to Additional S.P. through Constable Shahid Ali.
8.3 After receiving the authorization, the I.O. alongwith other police official, reached at the spot, at about 10:30 a.m. The I.O. made efforts to associate the independent witnesses, but, no one was ready to be the witness.
8.4 On inquiry, the local persons disclosed that three pet dogs have been kept by Uma Devi @ Mombatti. As such, the Police officials were told to be cautious while entering the house.
8.5 Thereafter, Const. Chandan Chaudhary brought independent witnesses, namely Rajeev Kumar and Bhaag Singh. Both of them were apprised about the factual position and they were associated in the raiding party. Thereafter, raiding party reached at the spot.
8.6 On the main door of the ground floor of the house, two pet dogs were found tied. On calling, Uma Devi, alongwith other family members, came to the main door, and the I.O. apprised them about the information. In the house of Uma Devi @ Mombatti, her relative Abhishek, sons Abhay and Arun Bhatti and their wives Muskan and Priyanka, sister Rajwati and her daughter Amisha were found.
8.7 The house was searched, but, nothing incriminating was found from the ground floor. On the second floor also, nothing incriminating was found. However, on the stairs of the second floor, which were connecting the second floor with
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 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 applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court ruled that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the absence of commercial quantity in the contraband case.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
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.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail may be granted when the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, ensuring the applicant's rights are protected.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
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.
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
