Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rajender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2902 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Shashi Kant Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied: no reasonable grounds believing not guilty and risk of reoffending on bail.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail in offences involving commercial quantity - Rigours of Section 37 apply mandatorily - Twin conditions required: reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail - Public Prosecutor given opportunity and opposed application - No material to satisfy twin conditions - Prima facie possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substance (517.12 grams Tramadol against 250 grams limit) - Petition for regular bail dismissed. (Paras 10, 17)

(B) Grant of bail - General principles - Nature of accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, antecedents, risk of tampering or reoffending considered - In NDPS commercial quantity cases, negation of bail is rule and grant exception - Strict compliance with Section 37 mandatory, liberal approach impermissible. (Paras 8, 18)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail after charge-sheet filed in case under Section 22 NDPS Act. Prosecution: secret information received during patrolling, led to apprehension and search in presence of independent witness, recovery of 1120 capsules each containing 50 mg psychotropic substance totaling commercial quantity, no documents produced, laboratory confirmed substance, prior cases against petitioner including one conviction.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner prima facie connected to crime via sufficient material; no basis to hold unlikely to reoffend if released; twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied.

Issues: Whether to grant regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity post charge-sheet, considering Section 37 rigours and prosecution opposition.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS commercial quantity matters, court must record satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 before granting bail; requires substantial probable causes beyond prima facie; here, recovery material, lack of explanation, antecedents indicate no such satisfaction possible.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity tramadol recovered from petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties contend on section 37 ndps rigours. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail demands judicious application of sc principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. section 37 mandates twin conditions for ndps bail. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. twin conditions unsatisfied; ndps bail denied. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 69 of 2024, dated 24.04.2024, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had searched the petitioner after completing the formalities on 24.04.2024 at 4:10 PM. The petitioner’s search led to the recovery of the capsules of Parivion Spas+, each containing 50 mg of Tramadol Hydrochloride. The total weight of the Tramadol was found to be 517.12 grams. The police arrested the petitioner. The allegations made against the petitioner are false. The investigation is complete, and the police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. FIR No. 90 of 2003, FIR No. 316 of 2007 and FIR No. 295 of 2015 were registered against the petitioner. He was acquitted in FIR No. 90 of 2003 and FIR No. 316 of 2007, whereas he was convicted in FIR No. 295/2015. 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 on patrolling duty on 24.04.2024. They received a secret information near the rain shelter Sanwara at about 4:10 pm, that Rajinder Singh (the present petitioner) was carrying a huge quantity of Tramadol in his backpack, which could be recovered by his search. 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 sent to the Supervisory Officer Parwanoo at 4:25 PM. The police went to the spot and found the petitioner going towards Dharampur. The police apprehended the petitioner and searched him in the presence of independent witness Praveen Kumar and HC Dinesh Kumar. 1120 capsules, each containing 50 mg of Tramadol Hydrochloride, were recovered. The petitioner could not produce any document for possessing these capsules. The police seized the capsules and arrested the petitioner. The capsules were sent to the SFSL, and as per the result of analysis, they were found to contain Tramadol. The total quantity of Tramadol in 1120 capsules was found to be 517.12 grams. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation on 23.09.2024. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 31.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

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

5. Mr Shashi Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. 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 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 quantity of Tramadol recovered from the possession of the petitioner was commercial and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present c