Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Ujyant Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 b
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
