Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Sanjay Kumar @ Chapan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2734 & 2735 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M/s Rahul and Rajat, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail denied absent satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions: reasonable grounds believing accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend while on bail.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 37 - Recovery of commercial quantity of cannabis (1.246 kg) from house where petitioners present - Prima facie possession established through ability to exercise control over articles in house - Rigours of Section 37 apply requiring satisfaction of twin conditions: reasonable grounds for believing not guilty of offence and not likely to commit offence while on bail - Conditions not satisfied - Bail petitions dismissed. (Paras 10, 14-21)

(B) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 52-A - Discrepancy in weight of contraband (1.246 kg at spot vs. 1289 grams before magistrate) - Magistrate's certification prevails as primary evidence - Discrepancy not fatal. (Para 12)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 22 - Communication of grounds of arrest in writing - Requirement applies prospectively. (Para 22)

(D) NDPS Act, 1985 - Commercial quantity offences - Bail negation rule, grant exception - Parameters for bail include nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, tampering risk. (Paras 8, 24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought regular bail in FIR for offence under Section 20 NDPS Act post arrest and completed investigation - Prosecution: secret information led to raid on house, recovery of cannabis beneath mattress, petitioners emerged from house - No prior FIR against one petitioner, prior FIR and property freeze against other.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners prima facie in possession with ability to control substance - No material rebutting presumption or satisfying Section 37 conditions - Petitions fail.

Issues: Whether petitioners had conscious possession of contraband recovered from house; effect of weight discrepancy and arrest grounds communication; applicability and compliance with Section 37 twin conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Presence in searched premises enables control constituting prima facie possession under NDPS Act - Section 37 mandatory for commercial quantity, requiring court satisfaction on twin conditions beyond prima facie case - Discrepancies and procedural lapses examined but not vitiating case at bail stage. Result : Bail petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial cannabis recovered from petitioners' house. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on illegal arrest and possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. judicious bail parameters per supreme court. (Para 8 , 9)
4. house control implies conscious possession. (Para 10 , 11)
5. magistrate certificate prevails on weight. (Para 12 , 13)
6. section 37 twin conditions for ndps bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. petitioners fail section 37 conditions. (Para 21)
8. arrest grounds communication prospective. (Para 22 , 23)
9. bail denial rule in ndps commercial cases. (Para 24)
10. official presumption rebuts tampering claims. (Para 25 , 26)
11. bail petitions dismissed. (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 62 of 2025, dated 06.04.2025, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Since both petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, they are being taken up together for convenience.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested on 06.04.2024 and have been in custody since then. As per the prosecution, 1.246 kg of cannabis was recovered from the house of the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar @ Chapan. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. The petitioners were not informed of the grounds of arrest, which is a violation of their constitutional right provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. There is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioners. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

3. The petitions are opposed by filing separate status reports asserting that the police had set up a nakka at Sheela Chowk on 06.04.2025. They received secret information at 1:40 AM that Sanjay Kumar @ Chappan was selling charas from his home, and a huge quantity of charas could be recovered by searching the house. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated Abhishek Anand and Vimoksh Upmanyu, and went to the house of Sanjay Kumar @ Chapan. Petitioners, Suman Kumari @ Varsha and Sanjay Kumar @ Chapan, were found in the house. The police told them about the information and searched the house. The police recovered a packet kept beneath the mattress, which was checked, and 1 kg 246 grams of cannabis was found in it. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the petitioners. The cannabis was sent to SFSL, and as per the result of analysis, it was confirmed to be an abstract of cannabis and a sample of charas. FIR No. 39 of 2018 was registered against the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, on 18.03.2018. An order for freezing his property has been passed by the competent authority. No FIR was registered against the petitioner, Suman Kumari. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rahul Kumar and Rajat, learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the petitions and Mr Jitender Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to them, and their arrest is illegal. There is no evidence that the house from where the recovery was effected belonged to the petitioners, and mere presence in the house without any further material is not sufficient to connect the petitioners to the commission of the crime. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ismail khan Aiyub khan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat (SC) 2000 (10) SCC 257 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Jitender Kumar Sha