Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Veer Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) Nos. : 320 & 322 of 2026, Cr.MP(M) No. 322 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Balram Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General, assisted by HC Brij Mohan, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory, requiring the court to find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to offend again for bail to be granted.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 27A, 8C - Bail applications dismissed as the applicants could not provide reasonable grounds to believe they were not guilty and unlikely to commit offenses while on bail - The nature and quantity of contraband involved is classified as commercial - The evidence against the applicants primarily hinges on financial transactions relating to the contraband - No substantial probative evidence was presented to substantiate the defense claims at this stage. (Paras 37-45)

(B) Bail Granting Principles - Provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act impose mandatory conditions on the court for granting bail, requiring satisfaction on two cumulative conditions concerning the guilt and likelihood of re-offending while on bail. (Paras 8-11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, falsely implicated, argued against the recovery of contraband from them while stating that their financial transactions were misinterpreted. Their prior bail applications had been consistently dismissed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that insufficient evidence provided by the applicants justified their release, and multiple prior applications for bail had been dismissed.

Issues: The key issues were whether sufficient evidence existed to satisfy the court regarding the applicants' non-involvement in the narcotics offenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of complying with Section 37 of the NDPS Act while assessing bail applications, indicating that the burden of proof rests upon the accused to establish circumstances favoring their release.

Result: Bail applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applications for bail by the applicants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. facts surrounding the investigation and evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. summary of allegations against applicants. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. arguments against the admissibility of evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 36)
5. mandatoriness of section 37 compliance for bail. (Para 40 , 41)
6. court's decision to deny bail. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The above titled bail applications are being decided by the common order, as, the applicants have filed these applications, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release them on bail, during the pendency of the trial arising out of FIR No.65 of 2024, dated 18.03.2024, registered under Sections 21, 29, 8C and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

2. It is the case of the applicants that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case, as no recovery of contraband or any incriminating substance has ever been effected from their conscious and exclusive possession.

3. According to the applicants, they have been involved, in the present case, on the statement of Nand Lal, who is father of the main accused Suresh Kumar, in which, he has alleged to the police that the contraband belongs to applicant Veer Chand and applicant Veer Chand has paid a sum of Rs.27,000/ to Suresh Kumar on 15.3.2024.

4. As per the applicants, they have no concern with the alleged crime and nothing has been recovered from their possession.

5. According to the applicants, investigation, in the present case, is complete, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping them in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.

6. As per the applicants, the entire police story is totally improbable and appears to be concocted, just to falsely implicate the applicants, in the present case.

7. The applicants have also tried their luck before the learned Special JudgeII, Solan,
District Solan, H.P., by moving similar applications. However, the said applications have been dismissed, vide order, dated 3rd October, 2024 and 29th October, 2024.

8. Thereafter, the applicants had approached this Court, by way of Cr.MP(M) Nos.2460 & 2550 of 2024, which were also dismissed vide orders dated 13.11.2024 and 24.12.2024. Thereafter, applicant Veer Chand has again filed Cr.MP(M) No. 1185 of 2025, which was also dismissed by this Court on 22.05.2025. The said order, passed by this Court, has been assailed by applicantVeer Chand, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, his SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 16.07.2025. Subsequently, applicant Veer Chand, has again filed similar application before the learned trial Court, which was also dismissed on 15.10.2025. Applicant Mahavir has also filed Cr.MP(M) No. 2061 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 16.09.2025. Thereafter, the applicants have again filed Cr.MP(M) Nos.2944 & 2955 of 2025, which were also dismissed on 8th January, 2026.

9. Apart from this, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicants, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

10 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the applications.

11. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.3.2024, SDPO Nalagarh, along with other police officials, was present at village Vodala. They had put the picketing to preventing the trafficking of illicit liquor, in view of the ensuing Lok Sabha Election. T