Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as accused failed twin conditions of Section 37: no reasonable grounds to believe not guilty given prima facie conscious possession via concealment attempt, and risk of reoffending exists.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 47 of 2025, dated 6.4.2025, registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985.

2. It has been asserted that the police arrested the petitioner on 6.4.2025 for the possession of 1.853 kilograms of charas. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The prosecution has not collected any evidence to connect him to the commission of crime. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court on 19.8.2025. The trial is likely to take some time to conclude, 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 checking the vehicles at Parsola on 5.4.2025 at 8.20 PM. They signalled the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-92A-0203 to stop. The driver stopped the vehicle. The person sitting beside the driver tried to conceal something after seeing the police. The police became suspicious and associated Pankaj Kumar as an independent witness. The driver identified himself as Dupal Singh, and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Jai Chand (the present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle andrecovered four packets wrapped with khaki tape. The police checked the packets and found 1.853 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. As per the report of analysis, the recovered substance was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 4.6.2025, and the case was listed for consideration on 25.11.2025. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail and would intimidate the witnesses. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr . Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not aware of the contents of the packets. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Amar Nath Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:22851 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was present in the vehicle from which the recovery of a commercial quantity of charas was made. 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 in of the NDPS Act. 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. ,