Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Mukesh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2844 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr Karanveer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of commercial quantity contraband absent explanation; bail refused as twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied: no reasonable grounds for believing not guilty and risk of reoffending.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29, 37, 35 and 54 - Bail in case of commercial quantity of charas (1.374 kgs) recovered from chamber behind front headlight of intercepted vehicle at night - Accused travelling as passenger without explanation for presence - All occupants prima facie in conscious possession - Presumption not rebutted - Twin conditions under Section 37 viz., reasonable grounds to believe not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail, not satisfied - Rigours of Section 37 apply - Bail refused. (Paras 10-12, 19)

(B) Grant of bail - Principles - Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment, risk of thwarting justice, antecedents of accused to be considered - No detailed examination of merits, but prima facie reasons required - In NDPS commercial quantity cases, negation of bail is rule, grant exception. (Paras 8, 20)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle intercepted at night checkpoint, driven by co-accused with petitioner as passenger - Charas recovered from concealed chamber behind left headlight in presence of witness - Both arrested - Charge sheet filed - Petitioner claims innocence, no personal recovery, no knowledge of concealment.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner prima facie in conscious possession of commercial quantity charas - No material to rebut presumption under Sections 35 and 54 - Twin conditions of Section 37 not met - No likelihood shown of not committing offence on bail.

Issues: Whether petitioner entitled to regular bail despite commercial quantity involvement; applicability of conscious possession to vehicle passenger; satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Occupants of vehicle from which contraband recovered deemed in conscious possession absent explanation, shifting burden to accused - Commercial quantity triggers Section 37 restrictions requiring court satisfaction on innocence and non-recidivism, stricter than general bail principles.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner's vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner denies knowledge; state asserts possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. bail requires judicious consideration of offence nature. (Para 8 , 9)
4. vehicle occupants in conscious possession of contraband. (Para 10 , 11)
5. section 37 imposes twin conditions for ndps bail. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. petitioner fails ndps section 37 twin conditions. (Para 19 , 20)
7. bail petition dismissed; observations bail-limited. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 112 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024, registered in Police Station Palampur, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a car, which was being driven by Amar Singh, and the petitioner was sitting on the passenger seat. The police checked the car and found 1.412 kgs of charas concealed in a chamber behind the left headlight of the vehicle. The petitioner is innocent. No recovery was effected from him. The vehicle was registered in the name of the father of the co-accused. The story put forth by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. 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 police had set up a naka on 25.09.2024 at about 12:30 AM at Chadiyar Chowk. The vehicle bearing registration No. HP66-3489 came from Baijnath at about 3:40 am. The police signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. The driver stopped the vehicle and identified himself as Amar Singh. The petitioner was sitting on the passenger seat, and he identified himself as Mukesh Thakur. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of an independent witness and Constable Dev Raj and recovered four packets concealed behind the front headlight. These were checked and found to contain 1.374 kgs of charas. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the charas. The charas was sent to the SFSL, Junga and as per the report of analysis, it was found to be an abstract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 24.03.2025, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 19.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr Karanveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Jitender Sharma, 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 police effected the recovery from a chamber behind the front headlight. The petitioner could not have any knowledge regarding the concealment of charas behind the front headlight. The police have failed to collect any material to connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime. The charge sheet has been filed 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 Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found travelling in a vehicle in the middle of the night at a place far away from his home. He has not provided any explanation regarding his presence in the vehicle. Prima-facie he is to be treated to be in possession of the substance found in the vehicle. The quantity of charas recovered by the police from the vehicle is commercial, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitione