Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Man Bahadur Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1431 of 2025
Decided On : 09-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Rakesh Chaudhary, Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases denied unless twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied: reasonable grounds believing accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offence on bail; red-handed arrest valid without grounds intimation; no speedy trial violation from natural calamity delays.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 37 - Regular bail in case involving possession of commercial quantity of charas - Accused seen sitting on hill, attempted to push yellow carry bag containing 2.007 kg charas into drain upon seeing police patrol - Apprehended with independent witness associated - Recovery confirmed by forensic report as extract of cannabis - Trial before Special Judge with fifteen prosecution witnesses cited, eight examined till date - Rigours of Section 37 apply requiring satisfaction of twin conditions viz. reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail - Conditions not satisfied as sufficient material connects accused with crime and no material shows unlikelihood of reoffending - Claim of illegal arrest rejected: no need to inform grounds when caught red-handed; arrest memo mentions offence - No violation of speedy trial right: eight witnesses examined in about one year three months; delay attributable to road blockade from heavy rains, beyond control. (Paras 3, 14-17, 21-22)

(B) Bail - Principles for grant - Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, risk to justice process, antecedents, likelihood of repetition or witness tampering - Exercise of discretion judicious, not mechanical; requires prima facie reasons without detailed merits appraisal - In NDPS commercial quantity cases, stringent parameters apply to curb drug menace; liberal approach impermissible; reasonable grounds mean more than prima facie, substantial probable causes. (Paras 8-9, 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner in custody for nearly two years sought regular bail asserting false implication, innocence, protracted trial violating speedy trial right. Prosecution opposed via status report detailing recovery of commercial quantity charas, charge-sheet filed, trial listed for remaining witnesses.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner fails to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37; sufficient prosecution material exists; no undue trial delay.

Issues: Whether twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied for bail grant; validity of arrest and communication of grounds; entitlement to bail due to alleged speedy trial violation and prolonged custody.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in NDPS commercial quantity offences impermissible absent court satisfaction, on reasonable grounds beyond prima facie, that accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; red-handed apprehension obviates need for arrest grounds explanation; trial progress not unduly delayed by uncontrollable factors like natural calamities. Result : Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims delay; state invokes section 37. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail discretion requires judicious application of principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. red-handed arrest excuses grounds of arrest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. section 37 mandates twin conditions for ndps bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. petitioner fails section 37 twin conditions. (Para 21)
7. no speedy trial violation by prosecution. (Para 22)
8. bail petition dismissed. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 248 of 2023, dated 18.08.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS’)

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested in a false F.I.R. The police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court on 28.09.2023. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 27.04.2024. The prosecution has cited fifteen witnesses, out of whom only seven have been examined. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. The petitioner has been behind the bars for about one year and ten months, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. 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 a patrolling duty on 18.08.2023. They reached Sangnapul at 5:14 p.m. The petitioner was seen sitting on the hill. The police went towards him. He pushed a yellow carry bag towards the drain after seeing the police. The police apprehended him and associated Narinder Singh as an independent witness. The petitioner identified himself as Man Bahadur Singh. The police checked the carry bag and recovered 2.007 Kilograms of Charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The Charas was sent to SFSL for analysis, and as per the report, it was found to contain an extract of cannabis and a sample of Charas. The police filed the charge-sheet before the Court of learned Special Judge at Kullu, H.P. The prosecution has cited fifteen witnesses and the matter was listed for recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses on 28.07.2025 and 29.07.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution was unable to complete the evidence despite the lapse of nearly two years from the date of the petitioner’s arrest. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to him. He has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in of the NDPS Act, and is not entitled to bail. The prosecution is only to examine the six witnesses, and the trial is likely to be concluded soon. 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 Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: -

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court