Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Taranjeet Singh – 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. 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 o
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....
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 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.
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions mandatory for bail; trial delay or incarceration alone insufficient grounds.
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.
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.
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
