Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Damini - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 2582 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swetima Dogra and Mr. Sidharth, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional –State Advocate General.

Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case: no recovery from petitioner, co-accused confession inadmissible, no prima facie guilt under Sec 37, prolonged 10-month incarceration with trial delay violates Art 21 personal liberty.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 25, 29 and 37 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail application in case of commercial quantity contraband recovery - No recovery effected from bail petitioner; implication solely based on confessional/disclosure statement of co-accused held inadmissible for arrest/conviction as per judicial mandate that statements under NDPS Act cannot form basis without safeguards; no prima facie material establishing sale/purchase/manufacture or control of conveyance; reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail; rigors of Section 37 yield to right to speedy trial and personal liberty on prolonged incarceration (about 10 months) with trial unlikely to conclude soon; past criminal antecedents not sole ground for denial; bail granted subject to stringent conditions. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17)

(B) Bail - General principles - Bail is rule, jail exception; object neither punitive nor preventive; refusal only if prima facie case, reasonable apprehension of fleeing/tampering/reoffending; past antecedents relevant but not determinative absent other factors; stringent bail conditions in special statutes melt on inordinate trial delay violating Article 21. (Paras 5, 11, 13, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Police party on secret information apprehended two persons in vehicle from which commercial quantity (2.950 kg) charas recovered; during investigation, they disclosed intended delivery to bail petitioner who had remitted advance amount; petitioner arrested on 29.05.2025 based on such statement; no recovery from petitioner; investigation complete, challan filed; prior bail applications dismissed/withdrawn; status reports opposed bail citing antecedents and disclosure.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner entitled to bail as Section 37 conditions not satisfied; no cogent material linking to contraband; continued detention punitive; conditions imposed to prevent misuse.

Issues: Whether reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner guilty under NDPS provisions and likely to reoffend (Section 37); validity of arrest on co-accused confession; impact of prolonged incarceration and trial delay on personal liberty under Article 21; relevance of past antecedents.

Ratio Decidendi: Court satisfied reasonable grounds for believing petitioner not guilty given absence of recovery, non-ownership/control of conveyance, and inadmissibility of co-accused confessional statement; no material indicating tampering/fleeing/reoffending; statutory bail restrictions in NDPS cases overridden by Article 21 where trial delay results in prolonged pre-trial detention without attributable fault.

Result: Bail petition allowed; petitioner directed to be released on furnishing bonds with sureties and compliance with enumerated conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail rule absent prima facie case. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner [Ms. Damini], being in custody since 29.05.2025 has come up before this Court, seeking bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS) originating from FIR No. 33 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra [H.P.], under Section 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act).

FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case set up by Mr. N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate is that on 05.02.2025 a police party head by ASI Satender Singh received a secret information at about 10.25 a.m that two persons, namely, Raj Kumar and Roop Lal were sitting in a vehicle parked near Government Hospital, Nurpur on Defence Road behind the Ekant Hotel near Shiv temple. On receipt of this information, the Investigating Officer sent information under Section 42(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to SDPO, Nurpur, through Constable Lekh Raj. The Investigating Officer associated independent witnesses Khushal Singh and Ajay Kumar and reached the spot and found the vehicle being registration No. HP-01K-5700 parked near Kali Mata Mandir and found Roop Lal and Raj Kumar sitting in the vehicle. On search of vehicle, six packets wrapped with tape hidden inside the cover of the rear door of the vehicle was found containing stick and round shaped solid substance i.e. Charas and the contraband was weighed and was found to be 2 Kgs. 950 grams. After completing codal formalities, Rukka was sent to Police Station, leading to registration of FIR No. 33 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025 [Annexure P-1] at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra against the aforesaid namely, Roop Lal and Raj Kumar. During investigation, the aforesaid accused disclosed that they were to deliver the contraband to the bail petitioner [Damini], for which the bail petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/- as advance in the bank account of the wife of accused Roop Lal.
2(i). It is further averred that the petitioner had filed an application for bail Cr.MP(M) No.238 of 2025 and the same was withdrawn on 11.02.2025 [Annexure P-2]. Bail application filed second bail application before Ld. Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.02.2025, which was dismissed on 10.03.2025 [Annexure P-3] and the third bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 910 of 2025, before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.05.2025 [Annexure P-4]. It is averred that the fourth bail application was filed before Learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.06.2025 and the same was dismissed on 24.06.2026 [Annexure P-5].
2(ii). The bail-petitioner has averred that she has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the accusation. It is averred that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner so far it relates to the accusation in the instant case. It is averred that the petitioner has participated in the investigation and investigation is complete and the police has presented the Challan-Final Police Report dated 29.07.2025 before concerned Court. Petitioner has furnished an undertaking that she will abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Bail petitioner has averred that she shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not flee away from investigation and trial. It is averred that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal as the grounds of arrest have not been furnished by Investigating Officer before arrest. It is averred that personal liberty of petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could neither be curtailed or taken away by presuming the guilt at this stage against the petitioner. Instant petition has been filed through her cousin Sahil, with the prayer for releasing the petitioner [Damini] on bail.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
3