SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Dildar Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 425 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jagmohan Singh Chandel
For the Respondents: Lokender Kutlehria

A successive bail application in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities is not maintainable without a material change in circumstances. Courts cannot conduct a 'mini-trial' by evaluating witness credibility or hostility at the bail stage, nor override the Section 37 embargo based on trial delay alone.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Regular bail - Commercial quantity - Successive bail application - Principles governing - Held, in cases involving commercial quantity, Section 37 provides a stringent embargo and bail can only be granted if twin conditions are satisfied, irrespective of arguments regarding delay or witness hostility - Successive bail applications without material change in circumstances are not maintainable as they amount to seeking a review of the previous order - Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidentiary value of witness statements at the stage of bail - (Paras 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of possession of a commercial quantity of heroin, filed for regular bail. Earlier bail applications were dismissed. The petitioner argued that independent witnesses turned hostile and trial was prolonged, claiming innocence and family responsibilities.

Findings of Court:
The court found that no material change in circumstances was established since the previous rejection. Further, the court observed that evaluating witness statements (hostility/contradictions) at the bail stage is impermissible as it encroaches upon trial court functions. Commercial quantity involvement triggered the Section 37 embargo, which was not satisfied.

Issues: Whether a successive bail application is maintainable without material change in circumstances; whether bail can be granted based on witness hostility and delayed trial in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive bail applications require proof of a material change in factual or legal circumstances; otherwise, it constitutes an impermissible review. Bail under the NDPS Act for commercial quantities requires satisfying the strict twin conditions of Section 37, which cannot be bypassed by citing witness hostility or delay.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and contentions for regular bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. requirement of material change in circumstances for successive bail applications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. mandatory adherence to section 37 ndps act embargo. (Para 14 , 15)
4. inadmissibility of evaluating witness credibility or delay as grounds for bail in ndps cases. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final dismissal order based on failure to satisfy section 37. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 176 of 2022 dated 16.07.2022, registered in Police Station West, District Shimla, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police checked the HRTC bus on the intervening night of 15/16.07.2022, and recovered one backpack kept on an iron rack near Seat Nos. 12, 13 and 14W containing 333.63 grams of heroin. The police could not find the owner of the backpack and wrongly arrested the petitioner without any reasonable grounds. The petitioner is innocent, and he has no connection with the aforesaid offence. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner had filed a petition for pre-arrest bail, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2776 of 2023 and was dismissed by the Court on 04.12.2023. The petitioner was arrested, and he filed another bail application, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2527 of 2024 and was dismissed on 13.12.2024. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case. The petitioner has remained behind bars for more than 2 years. His custody is not required in any manner, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner has to look after his aged parents and minor kids. The petitioner’s mother is an aged woman and under treatment from PGIMER Chandigarh. His father is an ailing person and unable to take care of her. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and all family members are dependent upon him. 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 the police checked an HRTC Bus on 16.07.2022 at 12:15 am and found a backpack on the iron rack kept above seat no. 12, 13, 14W. The Police interrogated the passengers, but nobody claimed ownership of the backpack. The Police checked the backpack and found 333.63 grams of heroin in it. The police seized the heroin and the backpack. The police conducted the investigation and checked the CCTV footage in ISBT, Sector 43, Chandigarh. The police found one person boarding the bus with a backpack. The police matched the photographs of the passengers with the CCTV footage and found the person boarding the bus with the backpack to be the petitioner. The police checked the CCTV footage of the motorcycle parking and found that a person carrying a backpack had got off the motorcycle bearing registration no. CH01-BW-7097. One person came to pick up the motorcycle on 16.7.2022 at 5:00 pm, who revealed his name as Raja Khan and disclosed on enquiry that the motorcycle belonged to Dildar Khan alias Sonu Khan (the present petitioner). The police searched for Dildar Khan, alias Sonu Khan, but could not find him. He had also switched off his mobile phone. The police also obtained the non-bailable warrants of arrest from the Court, but he could not be arrested. The Court issued a proclamation under Section 82 and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender on 21.08.2023. The petitioner had filed a pre-arrest bail petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 04.12.2023. The petitioner surrendered on 19.07.2024 and wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top