Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.15 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 and Section 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1.180 kgs of charas - Prosecution has examined 8 out of 24 witnesses - Delay in trial not attributable to petitioner - Court found no reasonable grounds to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit further offences while on bail - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 11, 19, 22)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail in serious offences - Court must consider nature of accusations, gravity of offence, and likelihood of tampering with witnesses - The burden lies on the accused to demonstrate reasonable grounds for bail. (Paras 7, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested during a routine traffic check and found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas. The prosecution's case was supported by the recovery of the substance, while the petitioner claimed innocence and cited delays in the trial.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had sufficient evidence against the petitioner and that the trial was progressing normally.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could be granted bail under the stringent conditions of the NDPS Act and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, as there was no evidence to support the petitioner's claim of innocence or that he would not commit further offences.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 FIR No. 88 of 2023 dated 10.12.2023 registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act). As per the prosecution, the police were present at Haluri Chowk, Kihar on 10.12.2023 for a routine traffic check. The police apprehended thepetitioner at 1:55 pm on suspicion. Police checked the petitioner’s carry bag and recovered 1.180 kgs of charas from it. The petitioner is in custody for one year. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses out of 24 cited by it. The delay in concluding the trial is not attributable to the petitioner. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on a patrolling duty on 10.12.2023. They were checking the vehicles at Haluri Chowk, Kihar. They saw the petitioner carrying a carrybag who returned after seeing the police and threw the carrybag. The police apprehended him and checked the carry bag in the presence of independent witnesses. Police recovered 1.180 KGs of charas from it. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to FSL, and as per the report, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. Prosecution has cited 24 witnesses out of whom 8 have been examined and 2 have given up. The matter was listed on 26.03.2023 and 27.03.2025. FIR No. 55 of 2023, dated 07.09.2023, was registered against the petitioner, in which he was acquitted on 29.05.2023. The petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas, and he would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, which is not attributable to the petitioner; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses out of 24 witnesses cited in the chargesheet. Two witnesses were given up. The matter was listed on 26.03.2025 and 27.03.2025. There is no delay in the progress of the trial; 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, how 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
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions: the accused must not be guilty and not likely to commit further offences while on bail.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of stringent conditions, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions mandatory for bail; trial delay or incarceration alone insufficient grounds.
Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases denied absent court satisfaction of twin Section 37 conditions, even with prolonged incarceration or trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious pos....
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.
Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as petitioner failed Section 37 twin conditions despite prolonged custody and trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession.
Bail denied under NDPS Section 37 for commercial quantity as petitioner accompanying contraband bearer fled police sans explanation, failing twin conditions of reasonable belief in non-guilt and no r....
The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act unless conditions of proving innocence and minimal risk of reoffending are met, regardless of trial delays.
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
