Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Aman Bhauta – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1857 of 2025, Cr. M.P. No. 3507 of 2025
Decided On : 02-09-2025
Key Points: - Interim bail granted from 03.09.2025 to 23.09.2025 on personal bond Rs.50,000 with one surety; subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, appearance, no inducement, restricted travel, and surrender by 24.09.2025. (!) (!) - Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Do not apply to interim bail, even in commercial quantity cases; medical grounds and parity with co-accused can independently justify interim relief. (!) (!) (!) - Medical grounds supported by medical certificates; addiction treatment and psychiatric admission advised; parity with co-accused released on bail by trial court. (!) (!) - Co-accused similarly released on bail; State challenging but interim bail granted citing parity. (!) (!) - Application disposed of as not pressed for regular bail Cr.MP(M) No.1857 of 2025; interim relief granted instead. (!) - Status report details substantial NDPS-related evidence including seizure of 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin and linked financial transactions; relationship among accused described. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Conditions include no leaving India without permission; surrender date set; e-prison software entry directed. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. regular bail application withdrawn and disposed. (Para 1) |
| 2. interim bail sought for medical treatment, parity. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. drug recovery, arrests, transactions link applicant to syndicate. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. state challenges co-accused bails via revisions. (Para 10) |
| 5. ndps section 37 rigors inapplicable to interim bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. interim bail granted on medical grounds, conditions imposed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Cr. MP (M) No. 1857 of 2025
Reply to the petition has been filed.
1. Under instructions, it has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that the application for regular bail i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1857 of 2025, is not pressed, however, the applicant be released on interim bail for a period of three weeks, keeping in view his medical condition. Considering the said fact, Cr.MP(M) No.1857 of 2025 is disposed of, as not pressed.
Cr. MP No. 3507 of 2025
By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to release the applicant on interim bail, for a period of three weeks.
2. The said relief has been sought on the medical ground. It has been pleaded that the applicant has been arrested in case FIR No.50 of 2024, dated 19.09.2024, registered under Sections 21, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.
3. According to the applicant, he himself is a victim of drug menace and voluntarily surrendered to medical aid to get himself reformed and remained admit in Hospital on various occasions. In this regard, his medical record has also been relied upon.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that for follow up treatment, he had visited Doctors of IGMC, Shimla, on 07.08.2025, where, the Doctors after examining him, have opined that the condition of the applicant is deteriorating and he was advised to get himself admitted in the Psychiatry ward. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon certificate dated 07.08.2025.
5. Apart from this, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, he is ordered to be released on interim bail.
6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on interim bail, for a period of three weeks.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has also pointed out the fact that his co-accused, in the present case, have been released on bail, by the learned trial Court and on the ground of parity, the relief of interim bail has been sought.
8. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.09.2024, SI Mehar Chand, I.O. ANTF(FU) CID, along with other police official, left the office in official vehicle, bearing registration No.HP03C-5663, for patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics, towards Dhalli, Theog, Kotkhai, Jubbal, and Kharapathar.
8.1. When, the I.O., along with other police official, was present at a place known as Kharapathar, then, he received a secret information regarding the fact that Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, son of Shri Mohammad Makbool, village Bhatpura, Post Office Sunitpura, Tehsil Karolpura, District Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, is travelling in a taxi No.HP01-A-5028, from Shimla to Rohru and he was having large quantity of Chitta/Heroin with him.
8.2. As per the information, he was going to Rohru, in order to sell the same to someone and in case, the said vehicle is intercepted and the bag of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi is searched, then, large quantity of Chitta could be recovered.
8.3. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., due to paucity of time, in case, he would have obtained search warrants, in that situation, the possibility of removal of the contraband was there. As such, the I.O. complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS
Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act not applicable to interim bail even in commercial quantity cases; granted on medical grounds for addiction treatment and co-accused parity.
Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases mandates court satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37: reasonable grounds of non-guilt based on substantial evidence and no likelihood of reoffending;....
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose and the court is satisfied of the accused's non-guilt....
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act as no strong evidence exists for continued detention, affirming that pre-trial punishment is impermissible.
Bail under NDPS Section 37 requires court satisfaction beyond prima facie that accused is not guilty and will not commit offence on bail; concealment of prior NDPS cases justifies rejection.
Bail must not be denied as a punitive measure; presumption of innocence prevails and applicants are entitled to bail as per parity with co-accused.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, allowing bail when no commercial quantity of contraband is involved.
The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory, requiring the court to find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to offend again for bail to be granted.
Bail granted in NDPS case for non-commercial quantity contraband; presumption of innocence upheld despite prior FIRs without conviction; parity with co-accused; no pre-trial punishment post charge-sh....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
