Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Arjun Singh @ Shiva - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2948 of 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied: reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner guilty of conscious possession and likely to reoffend, supported by recovery evidence and fleeing attempt. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29 & 37 - Bail application seeking regular bail in case of recovery of commercial quantity of charas from vehicle driven by petitioner - Petitioner attempted to flee by reversing vehicle at high speed, hitting another vehicle and officer - Prima facie conscious possession established as driver of vehicle, applying principle that occupants of vehicle deemed in conscious possession unless rebutted - Commercial quantity attracts rigours of Section 37 mandating satisfaction of twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe not guilty of offence and not likely to commit offence on bail - Conditions not satisfied; no material to corroborate false implication claim or rebut prosecution version supported by recovery, independent witness and injuries to officer - Petition dismissed. (Paras 10-13, 14-21)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Stringent bail parameters in commercial quantity cases - Negation of bail is rule and grant an exception - Court must record satisfaction of twin conditions based on reasonable grounds beyond prima facie, considering gravity of offence, likelihood of reoffending and thwarting of justice - General bail principles of nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, tampering risk also apply but subject to Section 37 limitations. (Paras 5-9, 22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed petition for regular bail claiming false allegations, planted recovery, police beatings and delay in trial violating speedy trial right; prior pending case mentioned. Prosecution status report detailed patrolling interception of vehicle, fleeing attempt, recovery of 6.058 kg charas from petitioner's driven vehicle in presence of independent witness, arrests and confessions revealing purchase-sale chain and bank transfers.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; observations confined to bail disposal without merit impact.

Issues: Whether prima facie case made out against petitioner; applicability and satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37; entitlement to bail despite commercial quantity on grounds of false implication, beatings, delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution version prima facie credible with corroboration; petitioner as driver in conscious possession per precedents; no rebuttal of presumptions or twin conditions; speedy trial delay and false claim pleas unsubstantiated.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial charas recovered from petitioner's driven vehicle. (Para 1 , 3 , 10)
2. petitioner alleges false recovery, police brutality. (Para 2 , 5)
3. bail guided by offence nature, evidence, antecedents. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. commercial quantity invokes section 37 rigours. (Para 6)
5. vehicle driver deemed consciously possessing contraband. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. section 37 mandates twin conditions for bail. (Para 14 , 15)
7. reasonable grounds required for not guilty belief. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
8. twin conditions unsatisfied; ndps bail negation rule. (Para 21 , 22)
9. bail petition dismissed; observations bail-limited. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 162 of 2024, dated 25.10.2025, registered in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that the allegations against the petitioner are false, and no case is made out against him. The petitioner is a respectable person in society, and a false recovery was planted against the petitioner. The police gave beatings to the petitioner, and he sustained injuries. The police concocted a false case against the petitioner to save themselves. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. FIR No. 117 of 2019 is pending against the petitioner. 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 25.10.2024. They stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-97A-0842 and recovered 6.058 kgs of charas from it. They arrested driver Arjun Singh (the present petitioner) and occupant Vipin Kumar. The police interrogated them, and Arjun Singh revealed during the interrogation that he had purchased Charas from Maheshwar Singh for Rs. 2,50,000/-. Vipin Kumar revealed during the interrogation that Arjun Singh had promised to pay Rs.5,000/- to him. The police interrogated Ajay Kumar, and he revealed that he was working in the shop of Shubhkaran. Shubhkaran was arrested in a case of charas. Arjun Singh started looking after the shop. Arjun Singh asked Ajay Kumar to transfer the money to various persons as the accounts of Shubhkaran were seized by the police. Ajay Kumar had transferred Rs.27,000/- to Maheshwar Singh’s account. The police arrested Maheshwar Singh, who revealed during the inquiry that he had sold 06 kg of charas to Arjun Singh through Somdev. The police recovered the bank details of Maheshwar Singh and found that some vouchers mentioned the name of Ajay Kumar. The report of analysis confirmed the substance to be charas; hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution’s version is highly improbable. The police gave beatings to the petitioner and concocted a false case to save themselves. The petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2024, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence expeditiously, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 6.058 grams of charas, which is a commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfie