The court emphasized that possession of a substantial quantity of narcotics justifies denial of bail, prioritizing societal safety over individual liberty in drug-related offenses.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 234 of 2025, dated 14.10.2025, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case based on suspicion. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 14.10.2025. They received a secret information at about 6.45 PM that Ashok (the present petitioner) and Sunny were carrying intoxicating capsules in the motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-11CR4563. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring the search warrant would have led to the destruction of the case property. Hence, the information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Sirmour. The police joined Up-Pradhan Dilbag Singh and Saravjeet Singh and waited for the motorcycle. The motorcycle reached the spot at around 7:20 PM. The police signalled the motorcyclist to stop. The driver, Ashok (the present petitioner), and the pillion rider, Sunny, identified themselves. The police checked the backpack being carried by Sunny and found 3120 capsules of Spasmore containing Tramadol Hydrochloride. The police seized the capsules, and the motorcycle and arrested the motorcyclists. Sunny identified the shop from where the capsules were purchased. One accused, Ahbab, is yet to be arrested. No other FIR was registered against the petitioner. As per the result of the analysis, the capsules of Spasmore contained Tramadol Hydrochloride. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused Sunny, which is legally inadmissible. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of Tramadol, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under of the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v