Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Subhkaran - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent.
Cr. MP(M) No.362 of 2025
Decided on : 21-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29, 61, 85 - Bail application for an offence involving commercial quantity of contraband - The petitioner was arrested for possession of 1 Kg. 943.5 grams of Hashish - The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need for judicial discretion in granting bail. (Paras 1, 5, 15)
(B) Bail - The object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not punitive - Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and pre-trial incarceration has grave consequences - The court noted no flight risk or apprehension from the respondent-State regarding the petitioner. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested after contraband was found in a vehicle not owned by him, and the prosecution's evidence linking him to the crime was insufficient. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner should be granted bail due to the circumstances of the case and the absence of flight risk. (Paras 15)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the evidence against the petitioner and the implications of pre-trial detention. (Paras 5, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that bail should be granted considering the presumption of innocence and the lack of evidence suggesting the petitioner would flee or tamper with evidence. (Paras 12, 15)
Result: Bail application allowed; the petitioner is to be released on bail subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.64/2024 dated 12.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 20, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Status report perused. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The brief facts are that on 12.03.2025, the Police party while on patrolling, at about 2:30 in the night found a vehicle (Alto car) bearing number HP-76-5951 parked on the roadside of the Nagrota road towards Mattaur in front of the Toyota Agency. The interior lights of the vehicle were found to be on and four persons were sitting inside the vehicle. On seeing the Police vehicle, the persons sitting in the vehicle got nervous and the driver tried to start the vehicle. The Police party quickly took control of the vehicle. On questioning, it was found that the vehicle was owned by its driver Sukh Ram. The persons sitting on the front seat adjacent to the driver was named Bishan Dass. The other two persons sitting in the rear seats were named Sahil Kumar and the present bail petitioner.
4. On search of the vehicle, four packets wrapped in a plastic pack were found on the floor under the seat adjacent to the seat of the driver. The contraband recovered was found to be Hashish. The weight of the contraband was found to be 1 Kg. 943.5 grams. Admittedly, the quantity of the contraband recovered is a commercial quantity. The bail petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2024 and is presently lodged in judicial custody.
5. In coming to the determination that whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take trial, three elements need to be kept in mind, namely the charge, the nature of evidence by which it is supported and the punishment to which the party would be liable, if convicted. At the time of deciding a bail application, a detailed discussion of evidence, so collected and produced by the prosecution is to be avoided as it may cause prejudice either to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the bail petitioner.
6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that the recovery of the contraband had not been made from the vehicle of the bail petitioner bearing number HP-54A-9208, which was parked on the other side of the road. During investigation, the bail petitioner was sought to be linked to Sukh Ram, owner of Alto car bearing number -HP-76-5951, from where the contraband was recovered on the basis of Call Detail Report (CDR). However, no transcript of the calls have been placed on record.
7. Challan, in the case at hand, was filed in the month of November, 2024. Charges stand framed and now the matter is being listed for prosecution evidence. The total witnesses, in the case at hand, are 22. One of the witness stands examined. The matter is now posted for recording of evidence of two more witnesses on 24.06.2025 before the trial Court. The trial is not likely to complete in near future.
8. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment dated 18.10.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal Crl. Nos. 9737 of 2024 titled as Johnson vs. State of Rep by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Police, Nib-Cid and to judgment passed in Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 16671/2024, decided on10.01.2025 titled as Shambhulal Gurjar vs. State of Rajasthan
9. In both the aforesaid cases, the quantity of contraband involved was commercial. The High Court had rejected the bail in both the cases on account of commercial quantity being involved in the cases. In the former case, the accused had been in custody since more three years, whereas in the latter, he had undergone one year and eight months of custody. In both the cases taking into account the period spent, the bail petitioner h
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity of judicial discretion in granting bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The court emphasized that bail is a means to secure attendance at trial, and personal liberty should only be curtailed when necessary, reflecting the presumption of innocence.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, especially in light of trial delays.
The court ruled that bail should be granted when no contraband is found in possession, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged cri....
Bail is granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, especially if no contraband is found in possession of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for commercial quantity possession unless specific conditions are met, particularly if the public prosecutor opposes the application.
Bail is granted based on the presumption of innocence, absence of prior criminal history, and lack of risk of flight or witness tampering.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless necessary to ensure attendance at trial, with conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court ruled that the contraband did not constitute 'commercial quantity', thus allowing bail under reasonable conditions despite the applicant's criminal history.
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
