IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Shami Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.360 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail during trial for possession of 13.63 gms of contraband heroin. Police alleged applicant was involved in trafficking based on statements from co-accused. Court found no prior criminal record and concluded that the contraband did not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37's rigors were not applicable. (Paras 30-31)
(B) Bail - Presumption of innocence - Court emphasized that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law. (Paras 31-32)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of selling heroin, allegedly recovered from another accused’s vehicle. The applicant claimed innocence and no other cases against him, with the investigation complete and charge-sheet filed. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The applicant was granted bail, ordered to furnish bonds, and adhere to specific conditions. (Paras 32-34)
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the prosecution's case and whether the contraband quantity warranted the application of stricter bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence applies, and the absence of a commercial quantity of contraband allows for bail.
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-Shami Kumar has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.73 of 2023, dated 13.07.2023, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station East Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, by the police, on the ground that the contraband, weighing 13.63 gms of chitta/heroin, was recovered from the vehicle, being driven by Kuldeep Kumar and it has allegedly been revealed by accused Kuldeep Kumar that he has purchased chitta from one Shami, R/o Panchkula (applicant).
3. It is the case of the applicant that the story of the prosecution is highly improbable and police has not considered the fact that the applicant is doing the business and also paying Income Tax Returns.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that he is having no other case, registered against him and the investigation, in the present case, is complete and charge- sheet has been filed, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). The case is now stated to be fixed for prosecution evidence for 03.03.2025.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge, (CBI Court), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2025.
6. Apart from this, Mr. Mukesh Sharma, 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 12.07.2023, ASI Ambi Lal, Incharge, Special Investigation Unit, Shimla, submitted a ruqqa, through Ct. Dheeraj Kumar No.669, to Police Station East Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., mentioning therein, that on 12.07.2023, he, along with other police party, was on patrolling duty and duty to prevent the crime.
9. It is the further case of the police that when, police party was present at Mehli, then, at about 08:00 pm, they received a secret information, regarding the indulgence of Kuldeep Thakur and Saurav Chauhan, in the business of selling chitta and according to the said secret information, they are coming from Chandigarh and going towards Maliana side, in a car, bearing registration No.HP63-D-2992.
10. As per the said information, if the said vehicle is searched, then, chitta could be recovered. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As such, IO has complied with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, by submitting the report to the superior officer and thereafter, he has associated two independent witnesses, namely Bal Krishan Sharma and Sanju, after apprising them about the secret information.
11. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, at about 10:00 am, they noticed a car, bearing registration No.HP63-D-2992, being driven by its driver, coming from Mehli side. The car was signaled to stop, in which, two persons were found sitting. The person, who was sitting on wheel, disclosed his name as ‘Kuldeep Thakur, s/o Krishan Chand Thakur’, and the other person, sitting on co-driver seat, disclosed his name as ‘Saurav Chauhan, s/o Nareshwar Chauhan’.
12. Thereafter, the said car was searched and underneath the foot mat of the driver seat, a transparent plastic, containing granule shaped brown substance, was found and when, the same was checked on the drug detection kit, then, the same was found to b
The court ruled that the presumption of innocence applies and the absence of a commercial quantity of contraband allows for bail under the NDPS Act.
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 established that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, and bail should not be denied based on prior unconvicted allegations, especially when no commercial quantity of narcotics i....
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
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 court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
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.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute 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.