Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

Govind Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2975 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Rajiv Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General

In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail requires strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions: reasonable grounds believing not guilty and no reoffending risk. Prolonged detention, trial delays by accused, evidence discrepancies insufficient for grant.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Sections 20 and 37 - Bail in case of commercial quantity of charas (1.916 kg recovered from vehicle driven by petitioner) - Petitioner in custody over two years ten months - 14/18 prosecution witnesses examined, trial listed for remaining on specified date - Prior acquittal in similar offence - Delay partly due to petitioner’s adjournments - Twin conditions under Section 37 mandatory: reasonable grounds for believing not guilty and not likely to commit offence on bail - No satisfaction recorded as prosecution material prima facie connects petitioner, eyewitnesses support recovery - Prolonged incarceration, alleged evidence discrepancies, speedy trial claim rejected as inappropriate at bail stage and petitioner contributed to delay - Negation of bail is rule, grant exception in such cases. (Paras 11, 18, 19, 20, 23)

(B) Bail principles - Normal rule bail not jail inapplicable to NDPS commercial quantity offences - Court cannot appreciate contradictions, test witness credibility post-trial commencement - No detailed evidence examination at bail stage. (Paras 8, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner intercepted during patrolling, commercial quantity recovered from his vehicle, arrested same day. Chargesheet filed, trial progressed with majority witnesses examined. Petitioner claims false implication, improbable prosecution version, societal roots, speedy trial violation.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; observations not to influence trial merits.

Issues: Whether twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied; effect of prolonged detention and trial delay; permissibility of assessing evidence discrepancies at bail stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Strict compliance with Section 37 twin conditions sine qua non for bail in commercial quantity cases; reasonable grounds mean substantial probable cause beyond prima facie; no bail without satisfaction thereon despite delay if accused contributed; bail court refrains from evidence appreciation or contradiction analysis once trial advances.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner. (Para 1 , 3 , 11)
2. petitioner claims speedy trial violation; state cites section 37. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail rule except for grave offences; judicious discretion required. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. section 37 twin conditions mandatory for ndps commercial quantity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. petitioner fails section 37 twin conditions prima facie. (Para 18 , 19)
6. bail court cannot assess witness discrepancies or credibility. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. delay partly by petitioner; insufficient without section 37 compliance. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. bail petition dismissed; limited to disposal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 37 of 2023, dated 16.02.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 16.02.2023. The petitioner has been behind bars for the last more than two years and 10 months. The prosecution was unable to complete the trial, and the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The conclusion of the trial would take considerable time, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The prosecution's version is highly improbable, and there is no chance of the petitioner’s conviction. The petitioner has deep roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by 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 were on patrolling duty on 16.02.2023. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34C- 4247. The driver identified himself as Govind Ram (petitioner). The police searched the car and recovered 1.916 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to SFSL, Unga and as per the result, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. FIR No.29 of 2016 dated 30.01.2016 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner, in which he was acquitted. Chargesheet was filed before the learned Trial Court on 20.04.2023. The prosecution has cited 18 witnesses, out of whom 14 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of remaining witnesses on 16.04.2026. Hence, the status report.

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

5. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution was unable to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. The petitioner has roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had prayed for adjournments, which led to the delay in the completion of the prosecution’s evidence. The petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong to claim a violation of his right to a speedy trial. 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 case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down in of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and