The court granted bail based on the non-commercial quantity of contraband and the applicant's presumption of innocence, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in bail matters.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

Applicant-Naman Katal, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ' BNSS '), with a prayer to release him on bail, in case FIR No.216 of 2024, dated 05.12.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been named as accused and arrested, by the Police on 6.12.2024, in the present case, for allegedly possessing 7.47 grams of Chitta.

3. It is the further case of the applicant that he has no connection whatsoever, with the said contraband and is innocent person. He has termed the prosecution case as highly doubtful and improbable.

4. As per the applicant, the contraband allegedly shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in the present case.

5. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

6. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving similar application before the learned Special Judge, Shimla, bearing Bail Application No.7-S/22 of 2025, however, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 10^th January, 2025.

7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

8. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 05.12.2024, Inspector Shiv Kumar, has submitted a rukka, for registration of FIR, mentioning therein that on that day, i.e. 05.12.2024, he, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty to detect the crime relating to excise Act.

8.1. At about 08.20 p.m., when, the police party, reached at Cemetery Gate, they noticed two persons coming out from graveyard and moving towards Cemetery gate.

8.2. On seeing the police, both of them had tried to run away. While doing so, one had thrown away a packet out of his pocket towards the retaining wall. Hence, a suspicion has developed in the mind of the I.O.

8.3. Thereafter, the I.O. had nabbed both the said persons with the help of other police officials, whereas, the packet, thrown by one of the said persons, was lifted from there and was opened in the presence of two independent witnesses; namely Ajay Bhardwaj and Pushpa.

8.4. On inquiry, the person, who had thrown away the packet, has disclosed his name as Naman Katal (applicant), whereas, the other person has disclosed his name as Arshdeep Singh. The said packet was found containing granular shaped substance, which, on weighment was found to be 7.470 grams.

9. On the basis of the rukka, the Police has registered the FIR, in question. The contraband, was taken into possession and both the accused were arrested.

10. As per the status report, against Naman Katal (applicant), a case under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, was found to be registered with Special Task Force, Sector-79, Mohali, in which, he was found in possession of 20 grams of Chitta. The said case is stated to be pending adjudication before the competent Court of law.

11. The co-accused of the applicant is also stated to be released on bail on 10.1.2025, by the learned Special Judge Shimla, whereas, the application of the applicant is stated to have been dismissed.

12. As per the status report, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the competent court of law, which is now pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla.

13. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

14. Heard.

15. Admittedly, the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 of t