Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Taranjeet Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 433 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 15, 25, 29 - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 181, 192, 196 - Bail application - The petitioner, accused of possessing commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. (Paras 10, 12, 16)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must ensure that the accused's release does not compromise the investigation or lead to further offences, especially in cases involving narcotics. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing 129.600 kg of poppy straw from his truck, with a previous FIR registered against him for a similar offence. The prosecution has examined five witnesses, with the case ongoing. (Paras 1, 2, 19)
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient material indicating the petitioner's involvement in the crime and noted the commercial nature of the narcotics involved, thus denying bail. (Paras 9, 16)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner met the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the implications of his previous offences on the bail application. (Paras 10, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the stringent requirements of Section 37, highlighting that the accused must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and is unlikely to offend again while on bail. (Paras 10, 12)
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. 210 of 2023, dated 1.8.2023, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act) and Sections 181, 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were checking the vehicles at Bathu on 1.8.2023 at 12.30 AM. They stopped a truck bearing registration No. HP-11-5239 for checking. The driver could not produce any documents. The police enquired the driver about the articles kept in the truck, and he got frightened. The police searched the truck in the presence of two independent witnesses and found 10 bags containing 129.600 kg of Poppy straw. The police seized the bags and arrested the driver and the petitioner. The Poppy straw was sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per the result, it was confirmed to be a sample of Poppy straw. The petitioner is the owner of the Truck. He revealed during interrogation that he had purchased 10/10 bags from an unknown person and loaded them in his two trucks. One truck was apprehended at Bathu, and another truck was apprehended at Punjab. The petitioner has two trucks bearing registration No. HP-11-5239 and PB-10-1129. 129.600 kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from the truck bearing registration No. HP-11-5239 and a huge quantity were recovered from a truck bearing PB-10-1129. The petitioner is a dealer in poppy husk. FIR No. 279 of 2018, dated 16.11.2018 has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Nalagarh for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 of the ND&PS Act. FIR No. 29 of 2023, dated 1.8.2023, has also been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under section 15 of the ND&PS Act. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. Five witnesses have been examined out of 25 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The matter is now listed on 5.4.2025 for recording the statements of remaining witnesses. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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 is the owner of two trucks from which a huge quantity of poppy husk has been recovered. The rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case and the petitioner is unable to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail, hence, 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 accuse
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act as the petitioner failed to meet the stringent conditions of proving he is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend while on bail.
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 bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of stringent conditions, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
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....
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied; presumptions of culpable mental state and possession under Sections 35 & 54 not rebutted by accused.
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.
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.
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 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....
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions mandatory for bail; trial delay or incarceration alone insufficient grounds.
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
