Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Beli Ram @ Belu Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 ba
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.
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.
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 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.
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
