Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Jasveeer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 221 of 2026
Decided On : 11-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Chaman Negi, Ashwani Dhiman
For the Respondent: Lokender Kutlehria

Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate contraband quantity due to prior similar conviction, recovery inconsistent with self-consumption, criminal antecedents, repetition risk, and societal drug menace, even without Section 37 rigours.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 18 and 37 - Bail application in case of recovery of intermediate quantity of poppy straw (1.97 kilograms) and opium (200 grams) from vehicle - Prior conviction under Section 15 for possession of poppy straw - Rigours of Section 37 not applicable - Held, quantity too large for self-consumption; prima facie material connects accused to crime; criminal antecedents disentitle bail; likelihood of repetition and societal menace of drug abuse outweigh claim to bail even where Section 37 rigours absent. (Paras 2, 11, 12, 16, 17)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Principles restated from Supreme Court judgments - Nature and gravity of accusation, prima facie evidence, severity of punishment, criminal antecedents, risk of repetition, thwarting of justice, larger public interest to be considered - Normal rule is bail, not jail, except where circumstances like prior similar offences suggest otherwise - Mechanical grant impermissible; discretion to be exercised judiciously. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail - Not matter of right even if commercial quantity threshold not crossed - Menace of drug addiction erodes societal fabric, especially among youth; release sends negative signal; each case to be decided on facts including quantity, antecedents. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner in judicial custody sought regular bail in case under Sections 15 and 18 for alleged possession of intermediate quantity of poppy straw and opium recovered from his vehicle pursuant to secret information; prior conviction for similar offence; trial not likely to conclude soon; prosecution opposed citing recovery confirmation by FSL, charge sheet filed, and risk of repetition.

Findings of Court:
Prima facie sufficient material to connect petitioner to crime; quantity inconsistent with self-consumption claim; criminal antecedents relevant to deny bail; observations limited to bail disposal, no bearing on merits.

Issues: Whether bail grantable as matter of right where Section 37 rigours inapplicable; impact of prior conviction and intermediate quantity recovery on bail consideration in NDPS cases; balancing personal liberty against drug menace and repetition risk.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in NDPS cases not routine even for intermediate quantities; prior similar conviction, substantial contraband suggesting trafficking, and societal imperative to combat drug abuse justify denial notwithstanding absence of Section 37 restrictions; antecedents indicate likelihood of repetition.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. recovery of intermediate ndps contraband from petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments: innocence vs. risk from quantity and antecedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail factors: offence nature, antecedents, justice risks. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. status report shows prima facie case against petitioner. (Para 11)
5. ndps bail denied despite intermediate quantity, societal menace. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. quantity negates self-consumption; statement inadmissible. (Para 16)
7. prior ndps conviction bars bail as antecedents. (Para 17)
8. bail petition dismissed; limited to disposal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 324 of 2025, dated 10.10.2025, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.97 kilograms of poppy straw and 200 grams of opium in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-9846. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 129 of 2003, dated 20.3.2003, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Trial is not likely to conclude soon. The quantity of the contraband stated to have been recovered from the vehicle is less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, he 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 10.10.2025. They received a secret information at 1.50 PM that the petitioner was transporting poppy straw and opium in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-9846. The delay in procuring the search warrant would lead to the destruction of the contraband, hence a rukka under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was prepared and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Nalagarh. The police associated Ashwani Kumar and Tanveer Alam and intercepted the truck. The driver identified himself as Jasveer Singh (the petitioner). The police searched the truck and recovered 1.97 kilograms of poppy straw and 200 grams of opium. The police seized the contraband and arrested the petitioner. The contraband was sent to the SFSL Junga, and as per the result, it was confirmed to be a sample of poppy straw and opium. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 129 of 2003 for possessing 03 kilograms of poppy straw. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. The charge sheet was filed on 6.12.2025, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 1.4.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Chaman Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Chaman Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of the contraband stated to be in possession of the petitioner is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The criminal antecedents are not sufficient to deny bail to a person. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Harpreet Singh alias Jimmi Vs. State of H.P. 2025 HHC 29201 in support of his submission.

6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a huge quantity of poppy straw and opium. He was convicted fo