Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kewal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1558 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Umesh Kanwar
For the Respondent: Ajit Sharma

Bail denied under NDPS Section 37 as petitioner with prima facie possession of commercial quantity charas failed twin conditions: no reasonable grounds believing not guilty and likely to reoffend; trial delay insufficient ground.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29 and 37 - Bail application involving commercial quantity - Rigours of Section 37 apply mandating twin conditions: reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit offence while on bail - “Reasonable grounds” connotes substantial probable causes beyond prima facie, sufficient facts justifying satisfaction of innocence - Accused driving vehicle from which 2.500 kg charas recovered, prima facie possession established - No material showing satisfaction of twin conditions - Trial progress with charges framed and eight witnesses examined in eight months indicates no undue delay - Bail rejected. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

(B) Criminal Trial - Speedy trial - Mere lapse of time with reasonable progress and witnesses examined does not violate right or entitle to bail where statutory rigours unsatisfied. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle intercepted during checking, driven by petitioner with co-accused passenger; 2.500 kg charas recovered in presence of witnesses; both arrested; substance confirmed as charas; further arrests on disclosure; trial ongoing with six to eight witnesses examined post charge-framing.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37; prima facie possession of commercial quantity; likelihood of reoffending; no trial delay justifying bail.

Issues: Whether twin conditions of Section 37 satisfied for bail grant; whether prolonged custody and trial progress violate speedy trial right entitling bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In commercial quantity cases, bail impermissible absent court satisfaction on reasonable grounds of non-guilt and non-recidivism, per stringent parameters to curb drug menace; delay in trial not ground for bail if progress reasonable and not prosecution-fault.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner's vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's delay/innocence vs. state's section 37 rigours. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail parameters: offence gravity, antecedents, tampering risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. section 37 twin conditions unsatisfied: non-guilt belief, no reoffence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. no undue trial delay after eight witnesses examined. (Para 17)
6. bail petition dismissed; observations limited to disposal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 190 of 2023, dated 10.12.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “ND&PS”) registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra (HP).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP 01C-1826. The driver revealed his name as Kewal (petitioner), and another person occupying the front seat revealed his name as Maan Singh. The police checked the vehicle and recovered 2.500 kg of charas. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Chamba, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2023, and he has spent more than one year and six months in custody. The prosecution has failed to complete the trial, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, 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 party was checking the vehicles near Bhadroya Chowk. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP 01C- 1826 came to the spot, which was signalled to stop. The driver identified himself as Kewal (the present petitioner), and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Maan Singh. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of Kamal Kishore and Ajay Pathania and recovered 2.500 kgs of cannabis. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. Cannabis was sent to the SFSL Junga and was confirmed to be a sample of charas. Police arrested Yaseen and Isamdeen, alias Taimu, based on the disclosure statement made by the petitioner. Statements of six witnesses have been recorded, and fourteen witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, the status report.

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

5. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. Prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, despite the lapse of more than one year. The certified copies of the order sheets show that the delay is not attributable to the petitioner. 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 accused sought repeated adjournments, which led to the delay, and the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong. The petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in of the NDPS Act to get 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 Court in Ajwar v. Waseem , (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783:-

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter invo