Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Ujyant Sharma - Applicant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 545 of 2025
Decided On : 28-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22 and 29 - Bail application - The applicant, falsely implicated, seeks bail during trial; investigation complete, no recovery pending - Previous FIRs against applicant were compromised and resulted in acquittals. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Conditions for bail - The court found the contraband quantities did not meet the commercial threshold, thus the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable. The applicant's continued detention would be unjust and amount to pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited. (Paras 19-21)
(C) Bail granted - The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence. (Paras 22-24)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Ujyant Sharma, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.31 of 2025, dated 06.02.2025, registered, under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS At’), with Police Station Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.
3. As per the applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant or at his instance.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that earlier FIR No. 211 of 2015, dated 12.09.2015, under Section 341, 323, 504 IPC, was registered against him, however, the said matter has now been compromised and the applicant was acquitted on 30.01.2016. Apart from this, FIR No.93 of 2013, dated 17.4.2013, under Section 323, 504, 34 IPC is also stated to have been registered against him. However, in the said case, the matter has also been compromised and he was acquitted vide order dated 23.11.2023.
5. According to the applicant, the following drugs were allegedly found in the premises of accused Ajay Kumar:-
“i) 690 tablets of Nitrazepam containing 10 mg in one tablet as such total weight of the prohibited drugs in these tablets is 6.9 gram.
ii) 367 tablets of Clonazepam IP KLO jack containing 0.5 mg in one tablet as such the total weight of the prohibited drugs in these tablets is 1.835 gms.
iii) 639 tablets of Alrazolam and Erazol containing 0.5 mg in one tablet as such the total weight of the prohibited drugs in these tablets come for 3.145 gms.”
6. It is the case of the applicant that he has no concern with accused Ajay Kumar.
7. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving similar application, before learned Special Judge-II, Mandi, District Mandi, however, his application was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order, dated 14th February, 2025. Thereafter, the applicant has again filed similar application, which was dismissed on 5th March, 2025.
8. The applicant has given certain undertakings, to which, he is ready to abide by, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail.
9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
10. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, on 06.02.2025, ASI Anup Kumar, along with other police official, was on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Mandi District Mandi Himachal Pradesh.
10.1. At about 1:00 pm, when, the police party was present near the gate of Old Mandi Government School, then, the I.O. received a secret information that Ajay Kumar son of Inder Singh, who is running a shop in the name and style of Baniyaal Medical Store, in Old Mandi, which is closed for the last about 2 months and is residing in the building of Prem Singh in Old Mandi, was selling narcotic drugs to his customers, which are completely prohibited.
10.2. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., due to paucity of time, in case, he would have obtained search warrants, in that situation, the possibility of removal of the contraband was there. As such, the I.O. complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to his superior.
10.3. Thereafter, the I.O. had informed Drugs Inspector, Pawan Kumar. When, the Drugs Inspector has come, thereafter, they had proceeded towards the spot. On the way, the I.O. had associated Parv Thakur and Hari Singh, as independent witnesses, after apprising them about the secret information.
10.4. At about 1.50 p.m., they reached at the spot and the door of the residence of Ajay Kumar was knocked. On opening the door, two persons were found in the room. On inquiry, they have disclosed their
The court ruled that the quantities of contraband did not meet the commercial threshold, allowing bail under the NDPS Act due to complete investigation and absence of further recovery.
The court ruled that the contraband did not constitute 'commercial quantity', thus allowing bail under reasonable conditions despite the applicant's criminal history.
The court ruled that possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics does not invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail based on the presumption of innocence.
The classification of contraband as commercial quantity under the NDPS Act necessitates a higher threshold for bail, impacting the applicant's eligibility for release.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not meet the definition of 'commercial quantity', and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is inapplicable, and the presumption of in....
Bail can be granted when the accused is a permanent resident, has no prior cases, and the contraband is non-commercial, ensuring conditions are met.
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....
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
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
