Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Asleem – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MPM No. 2629 of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vijay Panchta
For the Respondent: Parshant Sen

Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as petitioner failed Section 37 twin conditions despite prolonged custody and trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25 and 37 - Bail application in case of recovery of commercial quantity (1 kg 286 grams) of charas from vehicle - All occupants deemed to be in conscious possession of contraband - Rigours of Section 37 mandatorily applicable - Court must be satisfied on twin conditions that there are reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty of offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail - Public Prosecutor opposed application - Prima facie material connects accused with crime - No material to show accused unlikely to reoffend - Prolonged incarceration or delay in trial progress not grounds for bail without satisfying twin conditions - Petition dismissed. (Paras 8-18, 19-22)

(B) Bail - Principles for grant - Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, antecedents, likelihood of repetition, threat to justice - Discretion to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically - Detailed examination of merits not required but prima facie reasons necessary. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail filed asserting false implication, prolonged custody since arrest and violation of speedy trial right. Prosecution status report detailed recovery of commercial quantity charas from carry bag in vehicle in which petitioner was travelling as front seat passenger. Charge sheet filed; statements of four witnesses recorded; trial listed for further evidence.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner prima facie in conscious possession of commercial quantity contraband as vehicle occupant; failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37; trial progressing normally, no entitlement to bail on delay grounds.

Issues: Whether rigours of Section 37 applicable and twin conditions satisfied; whether delay in trial or prolonged custody entitle to bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery from vehicle establishes conscious possession against occupants; stringent Section 37 conditions cumulative and require substantial probable cause for non-guilt and non-recidivism; liberal approach impermissible; delay irrelevant absent statutory satisfaction.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail after charas recovery from vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argue innocence vs. section 37 rigours. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail parameters from supreme court precedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. vehicle occupants in conscious possession of contraband. (Para 10 , 11)
5. twin conditions under section 37 not satisfied. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. delay alone insufficient for ndps bail. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. bail petition dismissed; observations limited. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No.132/2023, dated 12.12.2023, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called as NDPS Act in short).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. The police have filed a charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Petitioner would abide by all the terms & conditions, which the Court may impose upon him; 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 the police had set up a naka in a lonely place and were checking the vehicles moving on the road on 12.12.2023. The police stopped the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-64A-5227 and demanded its documents. The driver produced a registration certificate in the name of Harinder Kumar. The driver appeared to be frightened, which made the police suspicious. The police waited for the vehicles for 10-15 minutes, but no vehicles came to the spot. The police associated Constable Rahul Mahant and HHG Krishan Lal as witnesses. The driver identified himself as Harinder Kumar, and the other person sitting in the front seat of the vehicle identified himself as Asleem. The police checked a carry bag lying in the vehicle and found 1 kg 286 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The charas was sent to FSL. As per the report, the exhibit is an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. A charge sheet was filed before the learned Court on 29.02.2024. The statements of four witnesses have been recorded, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025, hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vijay Panchta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Vijay Panchta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.12.2023. Prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose upon him; hence, he prayed that the petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was present in the vehicle, from which 1kg 286 grams charas was recovered, which is a commercial quantity; hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 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