Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Devinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2242 of 2025
Decided On : 17-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms Vandana Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

In NDPS cases, vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of recovered psychotropic substances; bail denied despite non-commercial quantity due to criminal antecedents, repetition risk, and societal drug menace.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22 and 25 - Bail application - Interception of motorcycle carrying three persons based on secret information - Recovery of capsules containing psychotropic substance from helmet - Prima facie conscious possession by all occupants as they travelled together without explanation - Quantity less than commercial - Bail not matter of right - Criminal antecedents and risk of repetition - Menace of drug addiction eroding society - Bail denied. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Bail - Grant parameters - Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, witness tampering risk, justice obstruction, repetition likelihood - Liberty balanced with societal peace and order; no mechanical grant. (Paras 8, 9, 18)

(C) Conscious possession - In vehicle recovery cases, all occupants deemed aware unless rebutted - Presumptions under Act applicable. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
Police on patrolling received secret information about persons transporting drugs on motorcycle; intercepted at night, searched helmet, recovered 128 capsules confirmed containing psychotropic substance; no possession documents; prior FIR registered against petitioner for similar intoxicating capsules.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner prima facie in conscious possession; antecedents indicate threat if released; detention serves purpose amid drug menace.

Issues: Whether bail grantable despite non-commercial quantity, vehicle-based recovery claim of no personal possession, and prior criminal record; applicability of bail principles balancing liberty and societal interests.

Ratio Decidendi: Vehicle occupants held in conscious possession of contraband recovered therefrom; NDPS bail not routine even for small quantities, especially with antecedents and societal drug harm; courts must weigh prima facie case, repetition risk, public interest against individual liberty.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. tramadol recovery from motorcycle occupants in ndps case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argue innocence versus antecedents and repeat risk. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail guided by offence nature, evidence, and antecedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. vehicle occupants in conscious possession of contraband. (Para 10 , 11)
5. no bail right for non-commercial ndps quantities. (Para 12 , 13)
6. antecedents bar bail in serious drug offences. (Para 14 , 15 , 17)
7. liberty yields to societal peace against drug menace. (Para 18 , 19)
8. bail petition dismissed with limited observations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 124/2025, dated 27.07.2025, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 26.07.2025 at Nahan, Sirmour. They intercepted a motorcycle bearing registration No HP 18C- 6138 at 11:00 P.M. based on secret information, and recovered 96 capsules of Proxiohm Spas and 32 Capsules of Spasmad, a total of 128 capsules containing Tramadol, a psychotropic substance. The police registered the FIR and seized the drugs. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. He has no criminal antecedents, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 26.07.2025. They received a secret information at about 11:00 PM that three persons were riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP18C-6138 from Bangran Chawk to Sataun. They were transporting the drugs, and a huge quantity of drugs was recovered during their search. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Additional Superintendent of Police, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., at 11:20 p.m. The police associated Dhanveer and Jagmohan and waited for the motorcycle. The motorcycle reached the spot at 11:50 p.m. The driver identified himself as Sandeep Kumar, and the pillion riders identified themselves as Devinder Singh and Tara Chand. The police searched the helmet being carried by Sandeep Kumar and recovered 128 capsules containing Tramadol. The motorcycle riders could not produce any document for possessing/transporting the capsules. The police arrested the motorcycle riders and seized the capsules, which were sent to SFSL, and 64.8 grams of Tramadol were found in the capsules after their analysis. FIR No. 11 of 2024, dated 15.02.2024, has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Renukaji. The petitioner is involved in the possession of intoxicating capsules, which are adversely affecting the young generation. He would intimidate the witnesses and indulge in a similar offence if released on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Ms Vandana Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Ms Vandana Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery was effected from him. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and there is a possibility that he would indulge in the commission of a