Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Bala Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.2180 of 2025
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Panku Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
HC Suinder Kumar, present in person.

Non-disclosure of arrest grounds violates Article 22(1), vitiating arrest and warranting bail; prolonged two-year pre-trial detention due to trial delays in NDPS commercial quantity case violates Article 21 speedy trial right, overriding Section 37 restrictions.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Bail in cases involving commercial quantity - Not complete bar to grant of bail; court to hear public prosecutor and satisfy itself that accused falsely implicated or unlikely to reoffend - Prolonged incarceration of approx. two years with trial delay (13 out of 23 prosecution witnesses examined, supplementary challan filed adding more) violates Article 21 right to speedy trial, justifying bail. Constitution - Article 22(1) - Non-disclosure of grounds of arrest by arresting officer vitiates arrest, constitutes ground for bail overriding statutory restrictions. BNSS - Section 483 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 181. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)

(B) Constitution - Article 21 - Speedy trial integral to personal liberty; indefinite pre-trial detention pending delayed trial amounts to punishment, violates fundamental rights - Bail not to be withheld as punishment; object to secure attendance at trial. (Paras 8, 15, 19)

Facts of the case:
Police received secret information about persons indulging in illegal narcotics trade sitting in parked vehicles near motorcycle agency; checked vehicles in presence of independent witnesses, recovered 2.516 kilograms commercial quantity charas from bag in dickey of one vehicle where petitioner sat with co-accused; no plausible explanation for possession; co-accused enlarged on bail; challan filed, trial delayed.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner not falsely implicated as recovery from vehicle he occupied witnessed by independents; however, no grounds of arrest furnished, violating Article 22(1); trial unlikely to conclude soon; enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties and conditions.

Issues: Whether non-disclosure of arrest grounds vitiates arrest entitling to bail; applicability of Section 37 rigors vis-à-vis trial delay and prolonged detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Violation of Article 22(1) mandates release on bail even under stringent statutes; combined with Article 21 speedy trial violation from inordinate trial delay and two-year detention, outweighs offence gravity in commercial quantity case.

Result: Bail petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner's vehicle. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on lack of knowledge, arrest reasons, and trial delay. (Para 3 , 4)
3. no grounds disclosed in arrest memo violates article 22(1). (Para 5)
4. evidence suggests possession despite delay in trial. (Para 6)
5. section 37 ndps allows bail if no reoffending likelihood. (Para 7)
6. prolonged detention violates speedy trial right under article 21. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
7. detention period not sole ground; consider quantity gravity. (Para 13 , 14)
8. bail not punishment; ensure speedy trial regardless of crime seriousness. (Para 15)
9. presumption of innocence; balance factors for bail grant. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
10. petitioner granted bail subject to conditions and sureties. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely, Bala Ram, who is behind the bars since 23.10.2023 has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.338 of 2023, dated 22.10.2023, under Section 20, 29-61-85 of the NDPS Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and HC Suinder Kumar, No.109, I/O, P.S. Sadar Una, District Una, H.P. has come present along with record. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 22.10.2023, Police after having received secret information that persons namely, Prakash Chand, Hem Raj and present bail petitioner, namely Bala Ram, indulge in illegal trade of narcotics and at present, they are sitting in cars bearing No.HP-49-4053 and HP-87-AA-2933, parked near Enfield Motorcycle Agency, Una, reached on the spot, as detailed hereinabove, and expressed its intention to occupants of the car to search their vehicles. Present bail petitioner was found sitting in car bearing No. HP-49-4053 alongwith co-accused Prakash Chand, whereas other co-accused namely Hem Raj was found sitting in car bearing No. HP-87-AA-2933. Police firstly checked car bearing No.HP-87-AA-2933, wherein no contraband was recovered, but allegedly occupant of that car i.e. Hem Raj disclosed to the police that contraband was in car bearing No.HP- 49-4053, wherein present bail petitioner along with co-accused Prakash Chand were sitting. Police after having associated independent witnesses, checked the car bearing No.HP-49-4053 and allegedly recovered 2.516 Kilograms of Charas from the bag kept in the dickey of the car. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities registered FIR against present bail petitioner Bala Ram, Hem Raj and Prakash Chand. Save and except presnet bail petitioner, all other co-accused namely Hem Raj and Prakash Chand stand enlarged on bail. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner did not have any knowledge with regard to contraband, if any, in the car bearing No.HP-49-4053 and as such, he has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that knowledge with regard to contraband, if any, in car bearing No.HP-49-4053 was with co- accused Hem Raj, who already stands enlarged on bail. He further submitted that moreover no reason, if any, ever came to be assigned by the Investigation Agency at the time of arrest of the petitioner and as such, he is entitled to bail in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another , 2025 SCC Online SC 269, w