Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases mandates twin conditions under Section 37: reasonable grounds (substantial probable cause) for believing accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; mere innocence claim and unproven trial delay insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 234 of 2024, dated 19.10.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Chamba. He was arrested for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act vide FIR No. 234 of 2024. The petitioner is innocent, and nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family, and there is no chance of his absconding. FIR No. 85 of 2023, dated 26.9.2023, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on nakabandi duty on 19.10.2024. A vehicle bearing HP-73-2328 came from Balu at 9.25 AM. The police stopped the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Sonu Kumar. The police were checking the documents of the vehicle when the petitioner came towards the police from Parel Bridge. He returned after seeing the police. The police apprehended the petitioner. He identified himself as Mureed Mohammad. He had a carry bag, which was checked, and 1.368 kilograms of cannabis were recovered from the carry bag. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The cannabis was sent to the SFSL, Junga and it was found to be a sample of charas. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The matter is pending for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 13.10.2025 and 14.10.2025, respectively.

4. I have heard Mr. M.A. Safee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. M.A. Safee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2024, and there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed.

6. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that a commercial quantity of charas was found in possession of the petitioner. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under of the NDPS Act. The trial is progressing normally. The summons has been issued to the prosecution witnesses for 13.10.2025 and 14.10.2025. Hence, 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 involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusation