Bail denied under NDPS Section 37 for commercial quantity as petitioner accompanying contraband bearer fled police sans explanation, failing twin conditions of reasonable belief in non-guilt and no reoffending risk.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 20 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024, registered at Police Station Manikaran at Kasol, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner and the co-accused Daleep Budhha were found moving together on 08.11.2024. The police intercepted them and recovered 1.599 kgs of charas from the backpack being carried by co-accused Daleep Budhha. The petitioner is not concerned with the charas recovered by the police. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.11.2024. The allegations in the FIR do not satisfy the ingredients of the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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 had set up a naka at Hurlu Dhaar on 08.11.2024 at about 5:10 am. Two people came towards the police, who returned after seeing the police. The police became suspicious and apprehended them. One person, identified as Daleep Budhha, was carrying a backpack. The petitioner was accompanying him. The police checked the backpack and recovered 1599 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The charas was sent to the SFSL, Junga and as per the report of analysis, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 27.01.2025. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 22.04.2026. Statements of two witnesses have been recorded. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material against him. The recovery was effected from the co-accused and not the petitioner. The police have filed the charge sheet, 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 Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was accompanying the co-accused at odd hours. He has not furnished any explanation for his presence, and a prima facie conclusion regarding the petitioner abetting the possession can be drawn at this stage. The quantity of charas recovered by the police is more than a commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under of the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou