The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act unless the accused satisfies the twin conditions of Section 37 concerning the likelihood of guilt and re-offense.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 257 of 2024 , dated 26.12. , registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police received secret information on 26.12. 2024 , that one Neeraj, resident of Kleen, District Solan, HP, had contraband in his home. The police searched the house and recovered 1212 grams of charas from one of the rooms. The petitioner was found at the spot, and he was apprehended with the allegations of being in conscious possession of the charas. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by the continued incarceration of the petitioner. The trial is likely to take some time, and pre-trial detention of the petitioner would amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible under the law. The petitioner had filed a bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, HP (Camp at Arki), which was dismissed on 21.02.2025. 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 police received secret information on 26.12. 2024 at about 6 PM during patrolling that Dheeraj Kumar (the petitioner), a resident of Kleen, was selling/purchasing charas. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring a search warrant would have destroyed the charas. Hence, it was reduced to writing and was sent to the Supervisory officer. The police joined Neeraj Kumar and Anshul Minhas and went to the petitioner’s room. The petitioner was present in the room. The police searched the room after completing the formalities and recovered a backpack containing 1.212 kilograms of charas from the bed. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to the FSL. The chargesheet was filed before the learned Trial Court, and the matter was listed before the learned Trial Court for recording the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses on 17.11.2025. Hence, the status report.

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

5. Mr Mukesh Sharama, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the charas. The police have filed the charge-sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. 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 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 Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail. Hence, he pray