The court established that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply for intermediate quantities, allowing bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and reasonable conditions to ensure trial presence.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 17 of 2025, dated 30.01.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. The petitioner was falsely implicated. The police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The investigation is complete. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a Nakka near HRTC Petrol Pump Dhalli, Shimla, on 30.01.2025 at 2:30 p.m. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP63-A-8878 came to the spot. The motorcycle rider had a backpack. The police signalled the motorcycle rider to stop and asked him about the backpack. He could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the backpack. The police searched the backpack in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered 220.41 grams of charas. The motorcycle rider identified himself as Lalit Singh (present petitioner). The police arrested the petitioner and seized the Charas. The charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per result of the analysis, the sample was found to contain Tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hairs. No other case is registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offence in case he is released on bail. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the quantity of charas found in possession of the petitioner shows that the same could not have been meant for self-consumption. Narcotics are affecting the younger generation adversely; therefore, no leniency should be shown in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: -

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ran