Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Gurpreet Singh @ Lucky - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.2603 of 2025
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Hanspuneet Singh Kehal, Mr. Bhairav Gupta and Mr. Lovepuneet Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General.

In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail requires court findings beyond prima facie that accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; direct recovery presence and CDR evidence preclude such satisfaction.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail in commercial quantity cases - Commercial quantity contraband recovered from vehicle in which applicant was travelling as passenger with driver - Applicant directly intercepted at scene - CDRs and tower locations indicate prior repeated procurements at same site - Previous bail application dismissed by trial court - Parity with co-accused whose role based on statements and links not applicable - Argument of delayed production before magistrate rejected as no violation shown - Court must record findings beyond prima facie satisfaction that accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail - In absence thereof, bail not grantable. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21)

(B) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Distinction between formal ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’ - Police surveillance and restriction prior to formal arrest constitutes custody for admissibility of discovery statements - No merit in contention that pre-arrest statements inadmissible. (Paras 16, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
Applicant in judicial custody sought bail claiming innocence, false implication based on co-accused statement, no personal recovery, family dependence, parity with released co-accused, and illegal arrest due to production beyond 24 hours. Prosecution status report detailed vehicle interception, contraband recovery, accused disclosures, and CDR/tower evidence linking multiple transactions.

Findings of Court:
No material to satisfy twin conditions under NDPS Section 37; arrest-production compliant with law.

Issues: Whether twin conditions under NDPS Section 37 satisfied for bail; applicability of parity; legality of arrest and production; evidentiary value of co-accused disclosures and circumstantial links.

Ratio Decidendi: Direct presence at recovery site and corroborative digital evidence establish prima facie complicity beyond which required findings unavailable; parity inapplicable to differently situated co-accused; pre-formal arrest detention qualifies as custody.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicant seeks bail claiming innocence, no recovery, parity, illegal arrest (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. prosecution opposes bail on circumstantial evidence (Para 11)
3. section 37 ndps requires strict twin conditions (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. bail denied for commercial quantity ndps offence (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant-Gurpreet Singh @ Lucky, has filed the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.52 of 2025, dated 07.03.2025, registered under Sections 20, 25 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case.

3. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and the applicant is in judicial custody. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the applicant, is no longer required by the police.

4. The applicant has further pleaded that he is the sole bread earner of his family and having deep roots in the society.

5. According to the applicant, no contraband has been recovered from him, as, he has been arrested, in this case, on the basis of statement made by the co-accused. As such, it has been pleaded that there is no substantive evidence to connect the applicant, with the crime in question.

6. The applicant had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge- III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., however, the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 16.07.2025.

7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Hanspuneet Singh Kehal, Mr. Bhairav Gupta and Mr. Lovepuneet Singh, Advocates, appearing for the applicant, have given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. Apart from this, the relief of bail has also been sought on the ground of parity, as co-accused Vyas Dev, in the present case has already been released on bail, by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025, while deciding Cr.MP(M) No.1442 of 2025.

9. Apart from this, it has also been argued by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the alleged recovery, as per the police, was effected on 07.03.2025 at 7:00-7:30 AM and the applicant was arrested at 7:45 PM, and was produced before the Court on 08.03.2025. All these facts have been highlighted to show that the arrest of the applicant, in the present case, is illegal, as, he has not been produced, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nurpur, within 24 hours.

10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
10.1. When, put to notice, the police filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 07.03.2025, a Ruka was submitted to Police Station, Nurpur, by ASI, Vinay Kashyap, IO, mentioning therein, that he, along with HC Umakant No.50, Manish No.416, C. Sandeep No.415 and Constable Lekh Raj No.254, CIA staff, in his personal vehicle bearing No.HP48A-5130, being driven by the IO, had left Police Station, Nurpur, for patrolling and duty to detect the crime relating to excise and narcotics and picketing. They were having the IO kit, personal laptop of the IO, printer, drug detection kit and electronic weighing machine and had proceeded towards Jassur side. While, on patrolling, when, they reached at Jassur market, then, IO along with other police officials, reached at Police Post, Kandwal at about 8:20 AM, they had put picketing and started checking the vehicles coming from Jassur to Pathankot side. During that process, two persons, who were on their morning walk, reac