Bail in NDPS cases cases must be exercised judiciously; while intermediate quantities may not trigger Section 37 restrictions, bail is not a matter of right and can be denied based on the nature of the offence, criminal antecedents, and the societal impact of drug abuse.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 22 of 2026, dated 27.01.2026, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS’ Act).

It has been asserted that a false case has been registered against the petitioner. There is no evidence to connect him to the commission of the crime. The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in entirety, do not constitute the commission of any offence. The police have filed the chargesheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police had set up a naka near village Bannu and were checking the vehicles on 27.01.2026. One motorcycle bearing registration No. HP48-4614 came from Saho at about 2:30 PM. The police signalled the motorcyclist to stop. He got frightened when he saw the police. The police associated Pawan Kumar and asked for the name of the motorcyclist. He identified himself as Mohammad Deen (the present petitioner). The police checked the motorcycle and recovered 109 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. FIR No. 28 of 2023, dated 17.01.2023, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act, which is pending disposal. The chargesheet was filed before the Court on 23.02.2026. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 25.05.2026. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case, and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. He was bailed in the earlier FIR registered against him. The police have filed the chargesheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence, and he would indulge in the commission of the crime if released on bail. The drugs are adversely affecting society, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

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. InGudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice wo