Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Mehboob - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 38 of 2026
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr Karanveer Singh
For the Respondent/State:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

Bail denied under NDPS Section 20 for intermediate charas quantity due to prima facie possession, prior similar offence, repetition risk, witness tampering apprehension, and drug menace to society, even without Section 37 rigours.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Bail application - Recovery of intermediate quantity (155 grams) of charas - Prior involvement in similar offence - Rigours of Section 37 inapplicable - Bail refused as petitioner prima facie in possession of huge quantity not for self-consumption, criminal antecedents indicate risk of repetition and witness tampering, release would send negative signal amid drug menace eroding society especially youth. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 16, 17)

(B) Bail - Principles - Normal rule bail not jail except where circumstances suggest fleeing, thwarting justice, repetition or intimidation - Factors include nature/evidence of accusation, punishment severity, antecedents, repetition likelihood, witness influence - In NDPS cases, courts consider rising drug abuse crisis undermining public health/national security. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner seen throwing polythene packet later found containing 155 grams charas, apprehended immediately, prior FIR for similar offence where bail granted, charge-sheet filed with 18 witnesses, trial pending.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner not entitled to bail considering prima facie material, antecedents and societal drug peril.

Issues: Entitlement to bail in NDPS case with intermediate contraband quantity, prior similar offence and Section 37 rigours inapplicable; relevance of criminal antecedents and drug menace.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail not matter of right even absent Section 37; discretion exercised judiciously weighing prima facie involvement, quantity significance, repetition risk from antecedents, witness threat and imperative to combat drug addiction's societal devastation.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner prima facie possessed 155g charas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 11)
2. parties argue for and against bail grant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail discretion considers offence gravity, antecedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. ndps bail strict despite intermediate quantity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. quantity, antecedents justify bail refusal. (Para 16 , 17)
6. bail petition dismissed; observations limited. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 264 of 2025, dated 30.10.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police saw the petitioner on 30.10.2025, at about 6.50 PM near Cafe Ravi View, Chamba. He took something out of his pocket and threw it. The police apprehended him, and he identified himself as Mehboob Khan. The police checked the packet and found 155 grams of charas in it. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of crime. He is a permanent resident of Chamba, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. FIR No. 2 of 2018, dated 03.01.2018, was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, HP; however, the petitioner was granted bail in the said FIR. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 30.10.2025 at 6.40 PM. They met Harsh on the way. HC Sanjay Singh was speaking with Harsh when they saw the petitioner. He took out a polythene bag from his right pocket, threw it under the bench, and tried to leave the spot. The police apprehended him, and he revealed his name as Mehboob Khan. The police checked the packet and found 155 grams of charas in it. The police apprehended the petitioner and seized the charas. The charas was sent to SFSL, and it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas after the analysis. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. The prosecution has cited 18 witnesses, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 1.4.2026. The petitioner was involved in FIR No. 2 of 2018, dated 3.1.2018, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would indulge in a similar offence, and he would influence the witnesses if released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Karanveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The quantity of the contraband stated to have been recovered from the petitioner is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The petitioner was earlier released on bail in the previous FIR. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 155 grams of charas, which is a huge quantity and could not have been meant for self-consumption. The petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence, and he would commit a similar offence if released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable