Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Khem Raj - Appellant
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau - Respondent
CrMP(M) No.249 of 2024
Decided on : 09-05-2024
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 20, 29, and 61 - Bail application filed by applicant for release during trial - Allegations of false implication and lack of evidence - Delay in trial cited as a ground for bail - Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act applicable due to commercial quantity of contraband - Court emphasized the necessity of fulfilling conditions under Section 37 for bail - Bail application dismissed. (Paras 1, 13, 24)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court must find reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences while on bail - The provisions of Section 37 are mandatory and must be satisfied. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, Khem Raj, sought bail under the BNSS during the trial for alleged involvement in a narcotics case, claiming false implication and lack of evidence against him. He has been in custody for 32 months with only 10 out of 16 witnesses examined. (Paras 1, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to grant bail as the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met, and the trial should be expedited. (Paras 23, 24)
Issues: Whether the applicant's prolonged custody justified bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the admissibility of evidence against him. (Paras 17, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mandatory conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence by the trial court. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: Bail application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Khem Raj has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in NCB Crime No. 31 of 2022, dated 22nd April, 2022, registered with Police Station NCB Sub Zone, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), on the ground that the present case is based on totally absurd, baseless and imaginary story, having no truth in it.
2. As per the applicant, he has no role in the commission of the alleged offence, for which, he has been arrested, in this case. According to him, he is a respectful person of the society and the recovery, in question has been planted against the applicant, as, nothing was recovered from him.
3. It has further been pleaded in the application that the applicant has falsely been implicated, in this case, on the basis of the confession statement of the main accused, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is not admissible as evidence and apart from the said statement, there is no legally admissible evidence.
4. According to the applicant, he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police, as, no iota of evidence could be collected by the investigating agency against him, in this case.
5. Apart from this, bail has also been sought on the ground of undue delay in the trial, as, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, despite the fact that applicant is in custody for the last 32 months, the prosecution could only examine 10 witnesses out of total 16 witnesses, in the trial Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has placed on record the statements of eight prosecution witnesses, recorded before the learned trial Court, and highlighted that nothing has been deposed by these witnesses against the applicant, who has allegedly been arrested, in this case.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record the print out of the order dated 20.03.2025 and 22.04.2025. By way of producing these two orders passed by the learned trial Court, efforts have been made to demonstrate that the chances of conclusion of trial against the applicant are not so bright.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that keeping the applicant in the judicial custody amounts to violation of his fundamental right, especially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has further contended that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case, as, there is no likelihood of the applicant committing any offence, if he is released on bail.
9. Lastly, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, the he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
10. The applicant has also tried his luck by filing similar bail applications, bearing CrMPs (M) No. 2796 of 2022, 1287 of 2023, 3188 of 2023 and 614 of 2024, which have been dismissed by this Court.
11. On the basis of the above facts, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, to which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail.
12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
13. When put to notice, the respondent has filed the status report, disclosing therein that the bail application is not maintainable, in view of the bar, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the contraband recovered, in this case, falls in the category of ‘commercial quantity’, i.e. charas, weighing 1.688 kg. The said contraband was recovered on 22nd April, 2022, from the conscious possession of co- accused Sukhchain @ Kaka, s/o Sh. Sadi, r/o Samudhgarh, P.O. Kanargadh, P.S. Dhuri, Distt. Sangroor, Punjab; and Virender Mahendroo @
The court emphasized that the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The court held that bail for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics requires strict adherence to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of satisfying specific conditions....
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
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 emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences.
Bail can be granted when the accused is a permanent resident, has no prior cases, and the contraband is non-commercial, ensuring conditions are met.
The court emphasized the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail, requiring reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and assurance against further of....
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
