Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Neeraj Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2645 of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohar Singh
For the Respondent: Lokender Kutlehria

In NDPS cases with intermediate quantity recovery and accused's criminal antecedents including prior NDPS offence, bail denied despite Section 37 inapplicability, prioritizing drug menace, repetition risk, and societal impact.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 29 - Bail application - Recovery of 450 grams charas (intermediate quantity) from backpack carried by petitioner - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Two prior FIRs pending including one under Sections 20, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Despite rigours of Section 37 not applicable, bail not matter of right - Menace of drug abuse eroding societal fabric - Quantity indicates not for self-consumption - Criminal antecedents disentitle bail - No parity with co-accused due to distinct roles - Bail denied. (Paras 1, 3, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19)

(B) Bail - Grant parameters - Nature of charge, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, repetition likelihood, justice thwarting risk, societal impact to be considered - Normal rule bail not jail, but NDPS offences warrant caution - Mechanical grant impermissible; prima facie material examined. (Paras 7-10)

(C) Bail - Parity - Not sole ground; requires equivalence in role and position in crime, not mere co-involvement. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail asserting false implication, complete investigation, no recovery pending. Prosecution opposed citing apprehension during patrol, recovery from backpack in presence of witnesses, chemical analysis sent, call records linking location, prior pending cases.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner failed to make out case for bail; quantity, antecedents, repetition apprehension justify denial.

Issues: Whether bail as matter of right for intermediate quantity; parity with co-accused; criminal antecedents' relevance; societal signal of granting bail in NDPS cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Even absent Section 37 rigours, NDPS bail applications scrutinized stringently considering drug menace, commercial intent inferred from quantity, prior similar offences indicating repetition risk; parity demands role parity; antecedents especially NDPS-related disentitle concession. Result : Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner charged under ndps for possessing 450g charas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims bail right; state stresses ndps gravity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bail guided by offence nature, antecedents, justice thwarting. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. intermediate ndps quantity denies bail amid drug menace. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. parity requires similar role; petitioner carried contraband. (Para 17 , 18)
6. ndps antecedents justify denying bail concession. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. bail petition dismissed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 78 of 2025, dated 19.06.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS’) at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. FIR No. 116 of 2024, dated 27.12.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Hatli, District Mandi and F.I.R. No. 330 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 331(6), 118(1), 352(2) and 3(5) of BNS at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, H.P. are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Courts may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 18.06.2025. They reached 100 meters behind Bhayad Chowk when they saw a bike parked on the roadside. Two people were standing near the bike. One person had a backpack. They got frightened after seeing the police party and attempted to ride the bike. The police apprehended them and enquired their names in the presence of independent witnesses Surinder Kumar and Ramesh Chand. The persons identified themselves as Neeraj Thakur and Sanjeev Kumar. Neeraj Thakur had a backpack, which was checked and 450 grams of charas was recovered from it. The police arrested them and seized the charas. The charas was sent to SFSL, Junga, for analysis. F.I.R. No. 116 of 2024 dated 27.12.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 21, and 29 of NDPS Act registered at P.S. Hatli District Mandi H.P. and F.I.R. No. 330 of 2024, dated 12.12.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 331(6), 118(1), 352(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 registered at P.S. Sadar Hamirpur, H.P. are pending against the petitioner. Call detail records of the petitioner and co-accused were obtained, and it was found that their location was the same. The charge sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court. The matter was listed for consideration of the charge on 22.11.2025.

4. I have heard Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 450 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Mere pendency of criminal case is not sufficient to deny bail to a person. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhimanue vs. State of Kerala , 2025 Live Law (SC) 929 in support of his submission.

6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a