Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Shanu Maya Taamad - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1595 of 2025
Decided On : 22-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Rajiv Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

In NDPS commercial quantity cases, vehicle occupants presumed in conscious possession unless rebutted; bail denied unless twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied – reasonable belief of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending; CrPC woman concession overridden.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25, 29, 37, 35 & 54 - CrPC - Sections 437 & 439 - Bail in case of commercial quantity recovery from vehicle - Petitioner front seat passenger; contraband in bag near rear seat passenger’s feet - No recovery from petitioner’s conscious possession claimed - All vehicle occupants held in conscious possession; presumptions under Sections 35 & 54 not rebutted (Paras 11-12) - Rigours of Section 37 apply mandatorily for commercial quantity offences - Twin conditions viz., reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail, to be satisfied (Paras 14-18) - Expression “reasonable grounds” means substantial probable causes, more than prima facie (Para 17) - Special concession for women under Section 437 CrPC not applicable as Section 37 NDPS overrides CrPC provisions (Paras 19-20) - Petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions; bail denied. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21)

(B) Bail parameters - Nature of accusation, role of accused, gravity of offence, likelihood of tampering or fleeing, etc., to be considered; superficial examination cautioned against (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle intercepted during checking; commercial quantity of charas recovered from bag near rear passenger’s feet; all occupants arrested; petitioner claimed mere presence, accompanying for medical treatment, sole breadwinner, entitled to woman consideration; prosecution opposed citing conscious possession, Section 37 rigours, flight risk as foreign national.

Findings of Court:
Petition fails; bail not granted as twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied.

Issues: Whether conscious possession established against front seat passenger; applicability and satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37; entitlement to special woman concession under CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery from vehicle imputes conscious possession to all occupants unless rebutted under Sections 35 & 54; Section 37 twin conditions mandatory and stringent for commercial quantity, requiring more than prima facie belief of innocence; CrPC concessions overridden by NDPS special provisions.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from vehicle occupants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties contend on innocence, possession, and section 37. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. strict supreme court parameters for ndps bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. conscious possession presumed for vehicle co-travellers. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. mandatory twin conditions under section 37 ndps. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. ndps section 37 overrides crpc women concessions. (Para 19 , 20)
7. bail denied for failing section 37 conditions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 194 of 2024, dated 26.11.2024, registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a citizen of Nepal. As per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-5CJ-3249. The petitioner was occupying the front seat, and Khem Kumari was occupying the rear seat in the vehicle. Dhan Raj was driving the vehicle. The police found a black bag kept near Khim Kumari’s feet and recovered 11 packets containing 6.805 kilograms of cannabis from the bag. No recovery was made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. She was implicated because of her presence in the vehicle. The challan was filed before the learned Trial Court on 24.2.2025. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner had visited India for her medical treatment. She is the only breadwinner of the family, and her family is facing hardship due to her continued detention. The petitioner is entitled to special consideration as a woman. Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception. 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 on patrolling duty on 26.11.2024. They were checking the vehicles near Malyavar Link Road. A car bearing registration No. DL-5CJ-3249 came to the spot at 10:45 am. The driver appeared to be frightened after seeing the police. The passenger in the rear seat tried to conceal the bag beneath her feet. The police associated Chaman Chandel and Het Ram as witnesses. The driver identified himself as Dhan Raj. The passenger on the front seat identified herself as Sanu Maya Tamad (the present petitioner), and the passenger on the rear seat identified herself as Khim Kumari. The police checked the backpack kept near Khim Kumari’s feet, and recovered 6 kg 805 grams of cannabis kept in 11 packets. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The cannabis was sent to the SFSL, Junga, for analysis, and as per the result of the analysis, it was found to be a sample of charas. The police filed the charge-sheet on 24.03.2025, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 22.08.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. She was accompanying the co-accused to Delhi for her medical treatment. She did not know that charas was being transported in the vehicle. She is entitled to special consideration as a woman. 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 Amar Nath v. State of H.P. , 2025:HHC:22851 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was travelling with co-accused who are residents of Nepal. A commercial quant