Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Chet Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1806 of 2025
Decided On : 20-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s Rahul Kumar, Rajat Kumar, Omkar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

In NDPS commercial quantity cases, vehicle passengers prima facie in conscious possession of recovered contraband; bail denied absent satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions: not guilty and unlikely to reoffend.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, 29 and 37 - Bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband recovered from vehicle - Passenger deemed in conscious possession along with other occupants - All travelling together in non-public vehicle prima facie establishes possession shifting burden under Sections 35 and 54 - Rigours of Section 37 mandatory - Twin conditions required: reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence on bail - "Reasonable grounds" means substantial probable causes beyond prima facie - Without satisfaction of twin conditions, bail impermissible despite prolonged pre-trial detention or general bail principles. (Paras 11-13, 15-22)

(B) Bail - Principles - Bail rule, jail exception overridden by special NDPS provisions for commercial quantity offences - Negation of bail is rule, grant exception - Courts must apply judicious discretion considering nature of offence, evidence, risk of reoffending. (Paras 8-10, 24)

(C) Arrest - Grounds of communication - Requirement for written communication applies prospectively. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle intercepted at checkpoint, contraband recovered from rear seat in presence of witnesses. Petitioner passenger beside driver. Arrested, charge sheet filed, in custody over 8 months without trial commencement. Claims no personal recovery, illegal arrest, suspect logbook entries.

Findings of Court:
Prima facie conscious possession; prosecution material sufficient; no satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions; logbook discrepancies not fatal at bail stage.

Issues: Conscious possession of passenger; satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions; effect of logbook and arrest grounds on bail entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Occupants of vehicle with commercial quantity contraband prima facie in conscious possession; bail requires mandatory satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions based on reasonable grounds beyond prima facie case; general bail principles subordinate to NDPS rigours.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner's vehicle (Para 1 , 3 , 11)
2. petitioner denies conscious possession as mere passenger (Para 2 , 5)
3. bail principles require judicious consideration of factors (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. section 37 rigours apply due to commercial quantity (Para 6)
5. vehicle occupants deemed in conscious possession (Para 12 , 13)
6. logbook discrepancies insufficient at bail stage (Para 14)
7. twin conditions under section 37 not satisfied (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. arrest grounds communication applies prospectively (Para 23)
9. ndps overrides general bail rule exception (Para 24)
10. bail petition dismissed with limited observations (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail, in FIR No. 131 of 2024, dated 17.11.2024, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in custody for over 8 months without the effective commencement of the trial. His custody amounts to illegal pre- trial detention, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The recovery was effected from the rear seat of the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling as a passenger. No recovery was made from the person of the petitioner. Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that police had set up a naka at Chadiyar Chowk on 17.11.2024. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-66A-4741 arrived at the scene, and the driver identified himself as Bali Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Chet Ram (the petitioner). The police demanded the papers of the vehicle, and the driver got frightened. The police searched the vehicle in the presence of Vinay Kapoor and Rohit. They recovered one plastic bag containing some articles and a packet wrapped with Khaki Tape. The police opened the packet and found 1.466 kg of charas in it. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The charas was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga and as per the result of analysis, it was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of crime in case of his release on bail. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 19.03.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rahul Kumar, Rajat Thakur and Omkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/ State.

5. Mr Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, and his arrest is illegal. The logbook does not corroborate the prosecution's version. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show the conscious possession of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Beli Ram Vs. State of HP 2025:HHC:38305 and Prakash Singh Vs. State of HP, Cr. Appeal No. 318 of 2024, decided on 22.8.2024 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the police had recovered the commercial quantity of the charas from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. Rigours of Section 37 of NDPS apply to the present case, and the petitioner is unable to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he prayed that t