Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Yog Raj - Applicant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CrMP(M) No. : 432 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate Genera wit Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, & Mr.Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, assisted by ASI Birbal Singh, I.O. Police Station, Patlikuhal.

The court held that bail for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics requires strict adherence to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of satisfying specific conditions.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 and 25 - Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Applicant seeks bail for alleged possession of 2 kg 49 g of contraband - Compliance with Sections 41 and 42 of NDPS Act disputed - Police action based on prior information deemed valid - The court noted that the contraband falls within ‘commercial quantity’ as defined by law. (Paras 1-3, 15-16)

(B) Bail - Conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - The court emphasized that releasing an accused charged with commercial quantity contraband requires satisfaction of specific conditions, including the Public Prosecutor's opportunity to oppose bail and the court's belief in the accused's non-guilt. (Paras 14-18)

(C) Trial progress - The court observed that trial is progressing without undue delay, as several witnesses have already been examined. (Paras 20-22)

(D)

Result: Bail application dismissed. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant-Yog Raj, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, in a case, arising out of FIR No.14/2023, dated 6^thFebruary, 2023, registered with Police Station Sadar, Patlikuhal, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, and wrongly arrested by the police, for allegedly possessing contraband (charas), weighing 2 kilogram and 49 grams.

3. As per the case of the applicant, the said contraband was recovered, on the basis of some prior information and the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act, have not been complied with.

4. It is the further case of the applicant that there is huge difference in the quantity allegedly recovered and the quantity received in SFSL, as such, the entire case of the prosecution comes under the cloud of suspicion.

5. As per the applicant, there is no legally admissible evidence, connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.

6. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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. Earlier, the applicant has filed similar applications, before this Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1738 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No.67 of 2025, which were dismissed as withdrawn on 4.11.2024 and 10.01.2025, respectively.

8. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Bhuender Singh Ahuja, Advocate, appearing for the applicant has prayed that the applicant, in the present case, has duly fulfilled the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. In order to buttress his contentions, Shri Bhupender Singh Ahuja, Advocate, has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648 of 2024, titled as Ankur Chaudhary versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2025, titled as Narcotic Control Bureau versus Lakhwinder Singh, and Muhd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 SCR 697, as well as, the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court, in Cr.MP(M) No.1373 of 2024, titled as Bheeme Ram versus State of H.P.

10. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 06.02.2023, HC Sandeep Kumar No.23, along with other police official, was on patrolling duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics.

10.1. At about 11.30 a.m., when, the police party was present near Patlikuhal bridge, then, the I.O., received a secret information that one Yog Raj, who is coming in white coloured van, bearing registration No.HP34B-1895, from Sekri and will reach between 1.00-2.00 p.m. at Patlikuhal. As per the information, in case, he is nabbed in between, large quantity of Charas can be recovered.

10.2. According to the I.O., in case, he obtains the search warrants, the said vehicle can not be nabbed and possibility of removal of the contraband is also there.

10.3. The information was found to be authentic and reliable, as such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same to his superior officer.

10.4. Thereafter, the police had made efforts to search the independent witnesses, but, due to heavy snow fall, no independent witness was found. Thereafter, at about 12.55 p.m., they had put the picketing at zero point Segali and from there, the I.O, had called the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and requested him to come to the spot, along with other person.

10.5. Due to heavy snow fall, no vehicle was found to be passing from the spot. However, at about 1.30 p.m., the I.O. noticed a white colour van, coming from Sekari side. The I.O. had made a pl