IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Trilok Negi - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 246 of 2025
Decided On : 28-02-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application dismissed - Applicant claimed innocence and lack of evidence against him, but had prior cases under NDPS Act - Investigation complete, but concealment of material facts disqualified him for bail - Non-bailable offences considered. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 18, 20)
(B) Bail - Non-bailable offences - The court emphasized that mere completion of investigation does not entitle an applicant to bail, especially when material facts are concealed. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought bail under the BNSS, asserting innocence and lack of evidence, while the police reported prior cases against him under the NDPS Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's concealment of prior cases disqualified him from bail, despite the completion of the investigation.
Issues: The main issues included the applicant's prior criminal record and the implications of concealing material facts in a bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-disclosure of prior cases under the NDPS Act undermines the credibility of the bail application, and the nature of the offences being non-bailable further complicates the applicant's request.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for bail application (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Trilok Negi, 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, in case FIR No.224 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & PsychotropicSubstances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has nothing to do with the offence, for which, he has been named as accused.
3. As per the applicant, during investigation, the police could not collect any evidence, connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged crime, for which, he has been arrested by the police.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that investigation, in the present case, is complete, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody.
5. As per the applicant, he is the sole bread earner of his family and due to his incarceration, his family is at the verge of starvation.
6. The applicant has sought the relief of bail on the ground of parity as his co-accused has already been released on bail by the learned Special Judge, Shimla.
7. Applicant has also tried his luck before the learned Special Judge, under ND& PS Act (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., by moving similar application, however, the said bail application has been dismissed, vide order, dated 24th January, 2025.
8. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for 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.
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, that on 20.12.2024, HC Puneet Sharma No.54 I.O., Special Cell Shimla submitted a rukka to the Police Station, Dhalli, disclosing therein that he, along with other police officials was on patrolling duty at Sanjauli towards Dhalli.
10.1. At about 3.30. p.m., when they were present near Dhalli tunnel, then he received an information from his source with regard to the fact that three persons are dealing with the sale and purchase of Chitta in the room in Ahaluwalia building near transformer and in case, the said room is raided, then, those persons could be nabbed along with Chitta.
10.2. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., in case, he would have obtained search warrants, in that situation, the accused, as well as, the contraband could not be found there. As such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to the superior officer.
10.3. Thereafter, the police party had left towards the spot. On the way, they had associated Om Prakash Sharma and Rajinder Chauhan, as independent witnesses, after apprising them about the secret information. Thereafter, they had reached at the spot.
10.4. When the police party reached on the 4th floor of Ahaluwalia Building, then the I.O. had knocked the door, which was opened by one Sandeep, care taker of the PG. He was also apprised about the secret information, which the I.O. had received.
10.5. The said care taker also confirmed the fact that in one room of the PG , three persons are sitting. When, the Police, along with independent witnesses, reached at the door of said room, the same was found to be bolted from inside. When the door was knocked, the same was opened. On opening, the police noticed three persons inside the room.
10.5. Out of the persons, who were found behind the person, who had opened the door, one had fled away from the window of washroom. Other two persons were directed to go out from the room. Afte
Concealment of prior criminal cases disqualifies an applicant from bail under the NDPS Act, despite the completion of the investigation.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, allowing bail when no commercial quantity of contraband is involved.
Bail must not be denied as a punitive measure; presumption of innocence prevails and applicants are entitled to bail as per parity with co-accused.
Co-accused's police custody disclosures inadmissible against applicant in NDPS cases; mere call detail records between co-villagers insufficient to deny bail; parity with released co-accused entitles....
Concealment of material facts in a bail application disqualifies an applicant from receiving bail, especially in drug-related offenses.
Bail granted in NDPS case involving non-commercial quantity contraband: Section 37 rigors inapplicable; presumption of innocence persists despite prior pending cases; no purpose in indefinite custody....
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
The absence of 'commercial quantity' in drug possession negates the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail and preserving the presumption of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.