Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kamlesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MPM No. 1999 of 2025
Decided On : 27-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kapil Sharma, Advocate, vice, Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

The standard for bail under the NDPS Act requires proof of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending; mere claims of trial delays are insufficient for release.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25, 29 and 37 - Grant of bail - Petitioner was found in possession of 2.18 kilograms of charas, a commercial quantity - The twin conditions under Section 37 regarding non-guilt and likelihood of committing an offence must be satisfied for bail - Held, petitioner did not satisfy these conditions nor were any grounds shown to support claims of innocence re: speedy trial. (Paras 12, 18, 20)

(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail in narcotic cases - Particular attention must be paid to the nature and quantity of contraband involved and its social implications - Courts must adhere to the statutory requirements in deciding such applications. (Paras 10, 16)

Table of Content
1. court's final decision on dismissing the bail application. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 50 of 2024, dated 03.06.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act) at Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP01D-7921. The driver revealed his name as Om Parkash, the person sitting on the front seat revealed his name as Dharam Singh, and the person sitting on the rear seat revealed his name as Kamlesh Kumar. The police searched the vehicle in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered 2.18 kilograms of charas. The petitioner is innocent, and he has not committed any crime. The petitioner was arrested more than one year and two months ago; however, the prosecution’s evidence has not commenced. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the district Mandi, and he has roots in the society. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP76-2344 on 03.06.2024 at Chathmi bridge. The police asked the driver to show the documents, but he prevaricated. Two people were sitting beside the driver in the vehicle, and all of them got frightened after seeing the police. The police called Dhruv Chand Rana, Up Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Bandu and told him to visit the spot with an independent person. Dhruv Chand Rana reached the spot with Ramesh Chand. The driver identified himself as Om Parkash. The person sitting on the front seat identified himself as Dharam Singh, and the person sitting on the rear seat identified himself as Kamlesh Kumar (present petitioner). The police searched the petitioner after completing the formalities and recovered a backpack containing 2.18 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and the vehicle. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The Charas was sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per result of analysis, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The matter was listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dharamshala, on 18.09.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Kapil Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Kapil Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy 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 apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 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 of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in t