Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Mangu Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1944 of 2025
Decided On : 31-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Y.P. Sood, Praveen Chauhan
For the Respondents: Varun Chandel, Mohinder Zharaick, Rohit Sharma, Ranjna Patial

Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case where proprietor absent from raid site, linked only by inadmissible co-accused custody statement and expired rent agreement, satisfying Section 37 conditions of reasonable belief in innocence and no reoffending risk.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 - Section 37 - Bail in commercial quantity case - Applicant proprietor of medical store not present during raid where juvenile found with seized tramadol capsules (commercial quantity); implication based on juvenile's disclosure statement made while in custody (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 27 read with Tofan Singh) and expired rent agreement - No conscious or exclusive possession proved - Rigors of Section 37 satisfied as reasonable grounds exist for believing applicant not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Paras 8, 21, 27, 38, 39)

(B) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Custody includes surveillance/restriction even before formal arrest; however, confessional statements to police officers inadmissible for conviction under NDPS. (Paras 27-36)

(C) Section 37 NDPS - Reasonable grounds mean more than prima facie; court not to weigh evidence but assess if credible grounds exist that accused not guilty and will not reoffend. (Paras 23-25)

Facts of the case:
Raid on medical store by drugs inspector; juvenile present, no valid license produced; loose capsules containing tramadol (commercial quantity) seized; proprietor applicant not present; implicated via juvenile's later statement and rent agreement expired on raid date; investigation complete, charge-sheet filed; prior bail applications dismissed.

Findings of Court:
Applicant entitled to bail as involvement not substantiated by admissible evidence; conditions imposed to ensure compliance.

Issues: Whether Section 37 NDPS rigors applicable given lack of possession; admissibility of co-accused disclosure; sufficiency of grounds for bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Accused not found at spot or in possession; co-accused statement in custody inadmissible; expired tenancy severs link; thus reasonable grounds exist to believe not guilty and no likelihood of reoffending.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail application under bnss amid completed investigation and prior dismissals (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. raid details reveal commercial tramadol at applicant's medical store (Para 10)
3. applicant absent during raid; linked via ccl statement and expired lease (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. section 37 ndps mandates strict bail conditions for commercial quantity (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. ccl disclosure inadmissible as made in police custody under evidence act section 27 (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. expired rent agreement weakens possession link to applicant (Para 37 , 38)
7. bail granted subject to strict conditions and undertakings (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Applicant Mangu Khan has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 316 of 2023, dated 18.11.2023, registered under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS’) with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

2. As per the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in this case, as, he, in no manner, is connected with the commission of the alleged offences.

3. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and the applicant is in judicial custody since 23.4.2024.

4. According to the applicant, despite filing of the charge-sheet on 5.8.2024, the learned trial Court has yet not framed the charges, against the applicant and the case is now stated to be listed for consideration on charge.

5. Highlighting the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.

6. The applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application No. 119-S/22 of 2024, before the learned Special Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. However, the said application has been dismissed, vide order dated 27.8.2024.Thereafter, he has approached this Court by moving Cr. MP(M) No. 2145 of 2024, which was dismissed on 25.10.2024. Thereafter, he has again approached this Court by moving Cr.MP(M) No. 2922 of 2024, however, the same was dismissed on 31.12.2024.

7. According to the applicant, both these applications were mainly dismissed on the ground that quantity, involved in the present case, is commercial quantity, whereas, he has been implicated, in the present case, merely on the basis of statement of his co-accused, which, according to learned counsel for the applicant is not admissible.

8. It is the specific case of the applicant that rigors of Section 37 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as he was not found at the spot, nor alleged contraband was found from his conscious and exclusive possession.

9. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.

10. When, put to notice, Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.11.2023, Drugs Inspector, Promila Thakur, submitted a complaint to the Police, disclosing therein, that on 10.2.2023, premises of Unnamed Clinic/Store, in village Saini Majra, P.O. Manjholi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. was raided. During inspection, one Sahil S/o Darshan Singh was found present at the spot, but, proprietor of the said firm was not present at the time of inspection.

10.1 According to the Drugs Inspector, during inspection, loose blue coloured, green coloured capsules alongwith other Allopathic Drugs were found at the premises. It has been averred that during inspection, a customer came to the premises and asked the person present in the