The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act unless conditions of proving innocence and minimal risk of reoffending are met, regardless of trial delays.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 78 of 2024, dated 06.05.2024, registered at 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 (NDPS) Act, 1985

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner has not committed any offence, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is 49 years and he has a large family to support. The police have filed the charge-sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all 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 received secret information on 05.05.2024 at 5:40 p.m. at Kotla Pul that Ashok Kumar (present petitioner) was selling the charas, and a huge quantity could be recovered by searching the petitioner’s house. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring the search warrant could have led to the destruction of the charas. Hence, the information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Jawali. The police joined Suresh Kumar and Nasib Kumar and went to the petitioner’s house, where he was present. The police searched the petitioner’s house in the presence of the witnesses and recovered Rs. 23,200/- and a polythene packet containing 1.106 kilograms of charas. The police seized the currency notes & charas, and arrested the petitioner. The police subsequently arrested Seema Kumari, who was in touch with the petitioner. The charas was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, H.P., and as per the report of analysis, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. Statements of seven witnesses have been recorded, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses w.e.f. 16.02.2026 till 19.02.2026. F.I.R. No. 268 of 2012, dated 25.11.2012, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC at the Police Station. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite a lapse of nearly two years since the petitioner’s arrest. This has violated the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy 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. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail; hence, 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