Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Raj Kumar Alias Raju - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 3008 of 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2006

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as vehicle owner prima facie in conscious possession of concealed charas absent explanation; twin conditions of Section 37 not satisfied – reasonable grounds lacking to believe not guilty or unlikely to reoffend on bail.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 29 and 37 - Bail application in case involving recovery of commercial quantity of charas from vehicle whose petitioner was registered owner - Driver fled scene - No explanation offered for concealment of contraband in rear door panel - Prima facie conscious possession established against owner - Rigours of Section 37 attracted - Twin conditions viz. reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence on bail not satisfied - Bail denied. (Paras 10, 17)

(B) Bail - Principles - In NDPS commercial quantity cases, negation of bail is rule and grant exception - Court must record satisfaction of Section 37 conditions based on substantial probable causes beyond prima facie - Detailed examination of evidence not required but prima facie reasons justifying rejection mandatory. (Paras 8-19)

Facts of the case:
Police on patrol received secret information about transportation of charas in specific vehicle; driver sped away on signal to stop, occupants fled after vehicle halted at lonely place; search yielded commercial quantity of charas hidden in rear door; vehicle documents indicated petitioner as owner; arrested subsequently; charge sheet filed, trial ongoing with few witnesses examined.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37; prima facie case of conscious possession made out; no material to indicate unlikely to reoffend if released.

Issues: Whether owner of vehicle from which commercial quantity of contraband recovered, in absence of explanation for concealment and driver having fled, entitled to regular bail notwithstanding Section 37 mandate; application of broad bail principles vis-à-vis NDPS rigours.

Ratio Decidendi: Ownership of vehicle coupled with unexplained concealment of commercial quantity contraband therein establishes prima facie conscious possession; Section 37 requires court satisfaction on reasonable grounds (substantial probable causes) that accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence on bail - conditions cumulative and not met here warranting bail denial. Result : Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner's vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner denies conscious possession; state invokes ndps section 37. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail requires considering offence nature, evidence, and justice risks. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. vehicle ownership implies prima facie conscious possession. (Para 10)
5. ndps section 37 mandates twin conditions for commercial quantity bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. petitioner fails ndps section 37 twin conditions. (Para 17)
7. ndps commercial cases: bail denial is rule, grant exception. (Para 18)
8. bail petition dismissed, limited to disposal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 270 of 2024, dated 12.12.2024, registered in Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168 on 11.11.2024. The driver fled away from the scene. The police checked the vehicle and recovered 4.36 kilograms of charas hidden in the rear door. The documents of the vehicle were found lying in it, and the petitioner was found to be the owner of the vehicle. The police arrested the petitioner based on suspicion. The prosecution’s version is based on an absurd, baseless and imaginary story. The possession of the petitioner has not been proved. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.12.2024. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter was listed for the recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses from 17.02.2026 to 21.02.2026. The petitioner’s trial is likely to take some time. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family, and there are no chances of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the court may impose upon the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 12.12.2024 when they received a secret information that Charas was being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the supervisory Officer. The police signalled the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168 to stop; however, the driver sped away with the vehicle towards Talwara. The vehicle was stopped at a lonely place, and the occupants of the vehicle ran away from the spot. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 4.36 kilograms of charas. The police arrested Raj Kumar subsequently, who revealed on inquiry that he was told by Shyam Lal to take the vehicle towards Jawali. Two persons signalled him to stop the vehicle, but he sped away in the vehicle at the instance of Shyam Lal. Subsequently, he and Shyam Lal ran away after stopping the vehicle at a lonely place. Shyam Lal was to deliver the charas to Bunty Kumar. The charas was sent to the SFSL, Junga and as per the report, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The mobile phones seized from the accused were also sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and the report has been received. The police have cited 36 witnesses, out of whom 4 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is listed for the recording of statements of prosecution witnesses w.e.f. 15.06.2026 till 19.06.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vikas Rajput, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot and could not be apprehended. The police arrested the petitioner based on suspicion. There is n