IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2179 of 2025 Reserved on: 06.01.2026 Date of Decision: 23.01.2026.

______________________________________

Noop Ram @ Anup Ram f...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Chaudhary & Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlheria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 125 of 2023, dated 28.11.2023, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The investigation has been

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

completed, and the charge sheet was filed before the Court on 23.02.2024. The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 05.01.2026. The prosecution has only examined four witnesses out of the ten witnesses cited by it. The possibility of concluding the trial in the near future is very low. The continued detention of the petitioner is violative of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The petitioner would abide by the terms and condituions which the Court may impose; hence, it was prayed that othe present petition be allowed and the petitioner be releasedC on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police had set up a naka on 28.11.2023. They had checked 5-6 vehicles. They saw one person carrying a backpack coming towards the place of Naka at about 2:00 PM. He returned after seeing the police. The police apprehended him. He could not give any satisfactory answer for his returning. He identified himself as Noop Ram @ Anup Ram (the present petitioner). The police checked the carry bag and recovered 1 kg 28 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to the SFSL, Junga and as per the report, it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas.

The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner on 31.01.2024. The police have cited 10 witnesses, out of whom four have been examined. The matter was listed on 5/6.01.2026 for recording the statements of the witnesses. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of more than 2 years from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. There is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon Nirmala vs. State of H.P 2022:HHC:4870, Hukam Ram vs State of H.P. 2022:HHC:10808, Rajiv Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2022:HHC:2126, Mousam Deen vs. State of H.P. in Cr.MP(M) No. 766 of 2023 and Osant vs. State of H.P. 2026:HHC:94 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he is not entitled to bail. There is no delay in the trial attributable to the prosecution.u He prayed that the present petition be dismissed. o

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions mad