Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Hem Raj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No.1574 of 2025
Decided On : 14-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied; minor weight discrepancy and examination of 15/23 witnesses negate claims of doubt or trial delay.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 & 29 - Bail in case involving commercial quantity - Rigours of Section 37 apply requiring satisfaction that accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit offence on bail - Recovery of 1.286 kg cannabis from carry bag during police check - Minor weight variation (1.286 kg in FIR vs 1.293 kg in laboratory report) due to weighing scales difference - Trial progressing reasonably with 15 out of 23 witnesses examined within one year of charge framing - No violation of speedy trial right - Twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied. (Paras 10-19)

(B) Bail - Principles - Courts must consider nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, trial progress, risk of reoffending - Stringent parameters under special statute for commercial quantity offences - No detailed merits examination but prima facie satisfaction required. (Paras 8-16)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner apprehended during police check with carry bag containing commercial quantity of cannabis; companion fled. Prosecution case supported by recovery witnesses, call details linking accused. Challan filed; 23 witnesses cited, 15 examined post-charge. Bail sought on grounds of weight discrepancy, trial delay over one and half years.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed as twin conditions under Section 37 not fulfilled; observations limited to bail disposal.

Issues: Whether minor weight discrepancy entitles bail; whether trial delay violates speedy trial right; satisfaction of Section 37 conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: For commercial quantity offences, bail barred unless reasonable grounds exist to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; ongoing trial progress and insignificant discrepancies do not suffice for release. Result : Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner arrested possessing 1.286kg commercial cannabis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner alleges false implication, trial delay; state cites s.37. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail demands judicious consideration of offence nature, evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. s.37 requires twin conditions for ndps commercial quantity bail. (Para 10 , 11)
5. strict compliance with s.37 twin conditions mandatory per precedents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. twin conditions unsatisfied; discrepancies minor, no trial delay. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. bail petition dismissed without merits prejudice. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.113/2023, dated 08.11.2023, registered at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police at Galu Ra Naal on 08.11.2023 at about 1:50 P.M. The quantity/weight of the contraband mentioned in the F.I.R.and FSL report is different. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars for more than one and a half years. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Two independent witnesses associated with the police did not support the prosecution’s case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by 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 police were present at Galu Ra Naal on 08.11.2023 for ‘nakabandi’. Two people came from the ‘jungle’ at about 1:50 P.M., who got frightened after seeing the police. One person jumped towards the bushes and ran away. The other person tried to go towards the ‘jungle’. He had a carry bag with him. The police apprehended him and searched the carry bag in the presence of Mamta Devi and Yugal and found 1.286 kgs of cannabis in it. The person identified himself as Hem Raj (the present petitioner), and disclosed the name of the other person as Ramesh Kumar @ Bhim Chand. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the petitioner. The police also arrested Ramesh Kumar. The call details record showed that both the accused had talked to each other many times. The challan was filed before the Court. The prosecution has cited twenty-three witnesses, out of which nine have been examined, and fourteen witnesses are still to be examined. Matter was listed for recording statements of prosecution witnesses on 11.08.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a discrepancy in the weight of the contraband as mentioned in the F.I.R. and the report of FSL, which makes the prosecution’s case highly doubtful. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite a lapse of more than one and a half years. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated, and he is entitled to bail on this consideration. Hence, 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, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses out of the twenty-three witnesses cited by it. There is no delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the ba