Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Uttam Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2691 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.L. Chaudhary, H.R Sidhu
For the Respondents: Lokinder Kutlehria, Vinod Kumar

Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases denied unless twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied: reasonable grounds accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; negation of bail is rule, grant exception.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, 29 & 37 - Bail application seeking regular bail in case involving recovery of commercial quantity of charas from vehicle - Petitioner apprehended after delay post-incident - No recovery from petitioner but vehicle taken by him on date of incident as per owner's statement - Identified by co-accused - Prima facie involvement established - Commercial quantity notified as 1 kg - Rigours of Section 37 apply mandatorily - Twin conditions viz. reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit offence while on bail not satisfied - Bail is exception, negation rule in such cases - Petition dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18, 19)

(B) Bail - Principles governing grant - Nature of accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, risk to justice process, antecedents, likelihood of repetition or witness tampering - Under NDPS involving commercial quantity, stricter standards; court not to grant mechanically without reasoned satisfaction of Section 37 conditions - Expression 'reasonable grounds' means more than prima facie, contemplates substantial probable cause. (Paras 8, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
Police received secret information regarding sale of charas from a parked vehicle; persons fled on sighting police; one apprehended identified absconding person as petitioner; search yielded 1.502 kg charas from carry bag in vehicle; vehicle owner stated petitioner had taken it on incident date; petitioner arrested a month later; charge-sheet filed post laboratory confirmation; trial pending.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner fails twin conditions under Section 37; sufficient material prima facie connects him to crime; nothing shows he would not reoffend if released.

Issues: Whether petitioner entitled to bail in commercial quantity NDPS offence; satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Circumstances including vehicle possession on incident date and identification by co-accused show prima facie complicity; no reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner not guilty or unlikely to commit offence on bail; Section 37 conditions cumulative and mandatory.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner's vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner falsely implicated; state invokes section 37. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail discretion exercised judiciously per supreme court principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. vehicle possession and commercial quantity trigger section 37. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. twin conditions mandatory for ndps commercial quantity bail. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. petitioner fails section 37 twin conditions test. (Para 18)
7. bail denial is rule in ndps commercial cases. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 69 of 2025, dated 23.05.2025, registered in Police Station Balh (sic), District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police recovered 1.502 Kilograms of charas from the car bearing registration No. HP-76-6108 on 23.05.2025. The police arrested Himmat Ram on the spot. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2025 after a delay of one month. The charge sheet does not mention that the petitioner had abetted the possession or sale of the charas. Petitioner’s bail petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, HP. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. He was wrongly implicated. Petitioner is the sole earner of the family. The investigation in the case is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner 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 patrolling on 23.05.2025. They received a secret information at about 4:45 PM that Uttam Ram and Himmat Ram were selling charas in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-76-6108. A huge quantity of charas could be recovered by searching the vehicle. The information was credible, and the delay in obtaining the warrant would have led to the destruction of the case property. Hence, the information was reduced to writing under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, and it was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police. Police went to the spot where they found a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-76-6108 parked on the spot. The people present in the vehicle ran away after seeing the police. The police apprehended one person and called the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, who visited the spot. The individual who was apprehended disclosed his name as Himmat Ram. He identified the absconding person as Uttam Ram (the present petitioner). Police searched the vehicle in the presence of the witnesses and accused Himmat Ram. Police recovered a carry bag containing 1.502 Kilograms of charas. They also seized charas and the vehicle and arrested Himmat Ram. Police investigated the matter and arrested the petitioner on 27.06.2025. The charas was sent to SFSL,Junga and as per the result of analysis, it was confirmed to be an extract of Cannabis and a sample of charas. The petitioner’s father, the owner of the vehicle, Barkhu Ram revealed that the petitioner had taken the vehicle on 23.05.2025. Police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 30.08.2025. The statements of five witnesses have been recorded. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 27.04.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s R.L. Chaudhary and H.R. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused Himma