Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ajay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.188 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 20 and Section 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1.530 kgs of charas - The petitioner has been in custody for 21 months, claiming violation of the right to a speedy trial - The prosecution opposed bail citing the commercial quantity of drugs and the failure to meet the twin conditions under Section 37 - The court emphasized the necessity of satisfying the conditions of reasonable belief of innocence and likelihood of re-offending for bail under the NDPS Act. (Paras 1, 5, 12, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under FIR No. 55 of 2023 for possessing charas, with evidence indicating his involvement in drug trafficking. He has been in custody for 21 months, and the trial is ongoing with 14 witnesses examined.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence to support the petitioner's claim of innocence or that he would not commit further offences if released on bail. The trial is progressing without undue delay.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner met the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the implications of the trial's progress on the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37, which require reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit further offences while on bail.
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. 55 of 2023 dated 04.04.2023 registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act). As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.530 kgs of charas. The petitioner has been behind the bars for the last 21 months. The matter is listed for prosecution evidence. His right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all 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 party was on patrolling duty on 03.04.2023 when a secret information was received that two persons were moving around New Model Senior Secondary School, New Kangra, who were intending to sell the charas. The information was reduced into writing. The police completed the formalities and reached Botua at about 9:10 pm with the witnesses where two persons were found sitting on the Atiala (platform). They revealed their names as Ravi Kumar and Ajay Kumar (the present petitioner). The petitioner had a backpack, which was searched and was found to be containing 1.530 kgs of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested Ravi Kumar and the petitioner. The petitioner revealed on inquiry that he had purchased charas from Sohan Singh @ Tiger. Police subsequently arrested Sohan Singh. The call detail record shows that the petitioner and Ravi Kumar were talking to each other before the incident and Ravi Kumar was also in touch with Sohan Singh. The result of the analysis confirmed the substance to be charas. The investigation is complete and the matter is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dharamshala for recording the statements of remaining witnesses on 22.04.2025. 14 witnesses have been examined in the present case. The petitioner is the main accused. He was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas; hence, the report.
3. I have heard Mr. Hemat Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the respondent State.
4. Mr. Hemant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case and the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offences, 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, how the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on
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 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 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 emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of stringent conditions, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions mandatory for bail; trial delay or incarceration alone insufficient grounds.
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....
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 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 emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if 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.
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
