Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases denied absent court satisfaction of twin Section 37 conditions, even with prolonged incarceration or trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 257 of 2023, dated 8.11.2023, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party was on patrolling duty on 8.11.2023. They intercepted a car bearing registration No. HP-11C-9294. The police checked the car in the presence of Roop Lal and found 3.670 kilograms of charas in it. The prosecution has cited 17 witnesses, out of whom six have been examined. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court for recording the statements of prosecution’s witnesses w.e.f. 3.11.2025 till 6.11.2025. The petitioner was arrested on 8.11.2023, and the trial has not been completed. The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply because of the recovery of a commercial quantity. The recovery was effected from the bag, and there is no evidence of the petitioner’s conscious possession. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 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 8.11.2023. They set up a nakka at Patta Four Lane. A vehicle bearing registration No. HR-11C-9294 was stopped at 1.45 PM. The police asked the driver to get the documents of the vehicle checked. The driver appeared to be frightened. Three other persons were occupying the vehicle, who also appeared to be frightened. The police associated Roop Lal. The driver identified himself as Pradeep. The person sitting on the front seat revealed his name as Nittu, and the persons sitting on the rear seat revealed their named as Satish and Vijender. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 3.670 kilograms of cannabis. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. FIR Nos. 242, 27, 48 312, 117 and 403 are registered against the petitioner. As per the result of the analysis, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 10.4.2024. The police have cited 18 witnesses, out of whom 06 have been examined. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 4.11.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Mere presence in the car is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner remained in custody for more than two+ years, and the prosecution has not completed the evidence. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner cannot claim to be released on bail because of the d