Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Naveen Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 784 of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 25, and 29 - Bail application under Section 483 - Applicant seeks bail during trial for alleged involvement in narcotics - Court considers factors such as completion of investigation, absence of commercial quantity, and parity with co-accused - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 16)
(B) Judicial Custody - The court emphasizes that judicial custody should not be used as punishment before trial, and the applicant's continued detention is not justified given the circumstances. (Paras 13, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, Naveen Kumar, was arrested under the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing narcotics. He claims innocence and seeks bail, citing the release of a co-accused and the completion of the investigation. (Paras 2, 5, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the contraband does not constitute a commercial quantity, and the applicant is no longer required for interrogation, thus justifying bail. (Paras 10, 11, 15)
Issues: The main issues include the applicant's claim of innocence, the completion of the investigation, and the grounds for granting bail based on parity with a co-accused. (Paras 2, 5, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's continued detention is unwarranted due to the completion of the investigation and the absence of a commercial quantity of narcotics, emphasizing that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment. (Paras 10, 13, 15)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Naveen Kumar 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. According to the applicant, he belongs to a respectable family, as such, there is no likelihood of his jumping over the bail.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the challan has been filed in this case. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody.
5. The relief has also been sought on the ground of parity as his co-accused namely, Saurabh @ Charu has already been released on bail, vide order dated 1.4.2025, passed in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 648 of 2025, titled as, ‘Saurabh @ Charu versus State of H.P.
6. The applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application No. 33-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.
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.
9. 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.
9.1 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 (applicant), 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.
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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.
9.5 On inquiry, one person disclosed his name as Saurabh Kumar and the other person disclosed his name as Naveen Kumar (applicant). 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.
9.6 After completing the codal formalities, FIR was registered and both the accused persons were arrested. Contraband, alongwith currency notes was taken into possession.
9.7 After completion of investigation, Po
Bail should not be denied as punishment before trial; completion of investigation and absence of commercial quantity justify granting bail.
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.
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.
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 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 established that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, and bail should not be denied based on prior unconvicted allegations, especially when no commercial quantity of narcotics i....
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 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 may be granted when the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, ensuring the applicant's rights are protected.
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.
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
