Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Amar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2203 of 2025
Decided On : 27-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Bail under NDPS Act requires proof of innocence and no likelihood of re-offending, especially for commercial quantities.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 and Section 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1.374 kg of charas; prosecution claims red-handed capture. Dismissal of bail as petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 regarding reasonable belief of innocence and likelihood of re-offending. (Paras 1, 10, 13, 17)

(B) Bail - Granting parameters - Court must ensure conditions of reasonable grounds for belief in innocence and risk of re-offending are met, especially in commercial quantity cases. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought bail after arrest on 25.09.2024, claiming innocence and alleging illegal arrest. Prosecution detailed intercept, recovery of contraband, and previous criminal history.

Findings of Court:
Sufficient material suggests involvement; twin conditions of Section 37 not satisfied; illegal arrest claim dismissed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had met the criteria for bail under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Court deemed no valid grounds exist to justify bail; past criminal record heightens scrutiny.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 112 of 2024, dated 25.09.2024, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2024. The prosecution’s case is false and is based upon an absurd, baseless and imaginary story. As per the prosecution, 1 kg 374 grams of charas was recovered by the police. The petitioner has no role in the commission of crime. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence. 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 were on patrolling duty on 25.09.2024. They had set up naka at Chadiyar Chowk at 12:30 am. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP66-3489 was intercepted by the police at 3:40 am. The driver identified himself as Amar Singh (the present petitioner), and the person sitting in the front seat identified himself as Mukesh Thakur. The police asked the driver to produce the document. The driver produced the registration certificate in the name of Karma Bodh Singh. The driver could not produce the license and became frightened. The police searched the vehicle in the presence of Raju and recovered four packets wrapped with brown tape. These were opened and found to contain charas weighing 1.374 kilograms. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The charas was sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per the result, it was confirmed to be an abstract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 24.03.2025. FIR No. 292 of 2020 dated 05.07.2020 is registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act at Police Station Harmara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has not completed the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner’s arrest is illegal. 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 caught red-handed with the charas and he knew about the nature of the offence. The memo of arrest mentions the offence committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case. Therefore, 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 record 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 the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)
“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pert