Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied; presumptions of culpable mental state and possession under Sections 35 & 54 not rebutted by accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 69 of 2024, dated 6.8.2024, registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had recovered 4 kilograms 12 grams of opium from the petitioner’s possession. The police arrested the petitioner on 6.8.2024. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 06.08.2024. They received a secret information at 10:30 am that one person was transporting a huge quantity of opium. The information was credible. The police reduced it to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police apprehended one person, who identified himself as Jai Bahadur (the present petitioner), in the presence of independent witnesses. He opted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. A search of his backpack was conducted, and

4.12 Kgs. of opium was found in it. The Police seized the opium and arrested him. He revealed during the interrogation that he and Pradeep Chand had brought opium from Nepal. The police analysed the call details record and found that the petitioner and co-accused Pradeep Chand had stayed at Kullu with effect from 10.07.2024 till 28.07.2024. Pradeep Chand called the petitioner every hour on the date of the incident to know about his destination. Pradeep Chand switched off his mobile phone after the petitioner was arrested. Police sent the opium to FSL. It was confirmed to be opium after analysis. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge, Solan. The matter was listed for consideration of charge on 6.11.2025; hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Hemant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the petitioner was asked by the co-accused to transport a packet. The petitioner was not aware of the fact that the packet contained opium. 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 opium. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case, and the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under of the NDPS Act. 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 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 elabo- rating on the content