IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Krishan - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.1127 of 2025
Decided on : 22-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for alleged involvement in drug-related offenses - Investigation completed, no recovery from applicant - Previous case under NDPS Act noted but no conviction - Court emphasizes presumption of innocence and conditions for bail. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 16, 17)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - Court can impose reasonable conditions to ensure attendance and prevent tampering with evidence. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, accused of drug offenses, claims innocence and seeks bail, asserting no evidence against him. Previous case under NDPS Act noted but no conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the applicant is entitled to bail as the investigation is complete and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Issues: The main issues include the applicant's previous case under NDPS Act and the sufficiency of evidence for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence applies, and the applicant's previous case does not warrant denial of bail without conviction.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Krishan has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.24 of 2025, dated 02.02.2025, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.
3. It has been averred in the application that the applicant has no role to play in the commission of crime and nothing has been recovered from his possession.Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed.
4. It has been pleaded by the applicant in para No.12 of the bail application that he is also facing another case, under the provisions of NDPS Act, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated22.04.2025.
6. Apart from this, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 01.02.2025, HC Vijay Kumar No.18, I/O PS Palampur, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty, as well as, the duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics.
8.1. It is the further case of the police that at about 11:45 pm, while on patrolling duty, police party reached at a place, namely Sugger, near Hanuman Temple, then, IO noticed a white coloured Swift car, parked on the side of the road, upon which, IO directed his driver to stop the vehicle on the left side of the road. Thereafer, IO, along with other police officials, proceeded towards the said car. Registration number of the said car was found to be HR41-F-1766, in which, two persons were found sitting.
8.2. It is the further case of the police that when, IO enquired from those two persons, they got perplexed. However, on enquiry, the person, sitting on wheel, disclosed his name as Sandeep Singh, S/o Kulwant Singh, R/o Flt No.12, Escort Avenue Verka, Amritsar, Punjab and the other person, who was sitting next to the aforesaid person, disclosed his name as Ravinder Singh, S/o Manjit Singh, R/o Block Verka, Abbabi Bagge Wali, Verka, Amritsar, Punjab. Subsequently, IO demanded the requisite documents and on perusal of the same, registration number of the said vehicle was found to be in the name of Mohan Singh, S/o Hawela Singh, R/o VPO Pehri Guilam Ali, Kaithal, Haryana.
8.3. Thereafter, on noticing the suspicious behaviour of both the persons and the increasing incidents of theft in the area, IO deemed it appropriate to search the said vehicle. As such, he associated Local Councillor Anish Nag in the investigation and thereafter, the vehicle was searched.During the search of the vehicle, underneath the steering wheel, a green coloured envelope was found tied, which, on opening, was found to be containing some substance. On checking on the drug detection kit, the same was found to be chitta/heroin, which, on weighing, was found to be 135 gms. The said contraband was taken into possession. Other codal formalities were completed.
8.4. After registration of the FIR, the police has arrested both the accused persons.
8.5. During the investigation,
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
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 court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
The court ruled that possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics does not invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail based on the presumption of innocence.
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.
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 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....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.