Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Beli Ram @ Belu Ram - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 419 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 and Section 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1.729 kg of charas - No criminal history and permanent residency asserted - Prosecution has examined 7 out of 15 witnesses - Court emphasized the need to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 for bail - The court found that the petitioner did not meet the required conditions for bail under the NDPS Act. (Paras 1, 5, 10, 17, 19)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail - The presence of reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty is mandatory. (Paras 7, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing charas, a commercial quantity, after being found fleeing from police. He has been in custody since 4.7.2023 with no prior criminal record.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires a belief that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the implications of the trial's progress on the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the twin conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied for bail, emphasizing the serious nature of narcotic offences and the need for stringent measures to prevent reoffending.
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 4.7.2023, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. The petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2023. The petitioner does not have any criminal history. He is a permanent resident of Kullu and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner has been in custody for one year and eight months and there is no possibility of an early conclusion of trial. Hence, he 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 were on patrolling duty on 4.7.2023. When they reached Khalet Ropa at about 3:00 PM, they found the petitioner with a carry bag going towards Damala Bridge. The police inquired about the petitioner’s name, and he asked about the identity of the police officials. The police officials showed their identity cards. The petitioner threw the carry bag and started running away. The police apprehended him and checked the carry bag in the presence of two independent witnesses. It was found to be containing 1.729 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. Charas was sent to FSL, and as per the report of analysis, it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. Seven witnesses have been examined out of 15 cited by the prosecution. The matter is now listed on 10.6.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars for about one year and nine months. The prosecution has only examined 07 witnesses out of 15 witnesses cited by it. There is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. The prosecution has already examined 07 witnesses out of 15 cited by it. There is no delay in the progress of the trial; therefore, 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 Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as follows: -
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The langu
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 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....
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.
For bail in NDPS Act cases involving commercial quantity, the accused must establish reasonable grounds of innocence and lack of likelihood to commit further offenses, per Section 37.
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.
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of contraband; twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied despite trial delay.
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
