Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 393 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Panku Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Lokender Kutlehria

In cases involving commercial quantities under the narcotics legislation, the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37—reasonable grounds for innocence and non-repetition of the offence—must be satisfied to grant bail, and bail cannot be granted solely due to the delay in trial or prolonged incarceration.

Headnote:(A) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 29, and 37 - Regular bail - Petition for bail involving commercial quantity of contraband - Twin conditions under Section 37 are mandatory - Whether delay in trial entitles accused to bail without satisfying Section 37 - Trial delay alone, without fulfilling statutory requirements, does not grant right to bail in cases of commercial quantity - Court must record satisfaction regarding reasonable grounds for innocence and non-repetition of offence while on bail. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22)

(B) Bail - Principles for grant - Discretionary jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously - Balancing personal liberty with social interest and serious nature of accusations - Stringent parameters applicable for offences involving commercial quantities of drugs. (Paras 8, 9, 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail for alleged possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. The prosecution case was that the petitioner was intercepted in a vehicle with the contraband. The petitioner contended that digital evidence regarding the timing of the vehicle crossing a specific location made the prosecution case improbable and argued that prolonged custody without trial commencement violated the right to a speedy trial.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner failed to show that he could not have visited the location on the date of the incident and noted that the information relied upon did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The recovery involved a commercial quantity of the contraband, triggering the mandatory statutory embargo on bail under the relevant Act.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics, and whether the delay in the trial provides a sufficient ground to override the statutory conditions for bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in cases involving commercial quantities cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences. These twin conditions are mandatory and cannot be dispensed with solely on the grounds of prolonged incarceration or perceived trial delays.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the recovery and arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding innocence and commercial quantity. (Para 5 , 6)
3. general principles for granting bail: nature of charges and evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court refuses to doubt prosecution evidence based on trivial documentation gaps. (Para 11)
5. mandatory satisfaction of twin conditions under section 37 of ndps act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. bail cannot be granted solely on grounds of delay or incarceration. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. conclusion and dismissal of the bail petition. (Para 24 , 25)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 71 of 2024, dated 5.11.2024, registered at Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-9360, coming from Bilaspur at Karmala NH-21 on 4.11.2024 at about 10:30 PM. The petitioner was driving the vehicle. He got perplexed after seeing the police. The police joined independent witnesses and recovered a light-yellow carry bag containing 3.039 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He sought the information under the Right to Information Act (RTI) regarding the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-9360 from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and NHAI revealed that the vehicle had crossed the Toll Plaza Maura on 04.11.2024 at 6:21 PM, and an amount of ₹155/- was debited from the Fast Tag Account. It was highly improbable for the vehicle bearing registration No HP-01K-9360 to come from Bilaspur at 9:30 PM, when the vehicle had already crossed Gara Maura at 6:21 pm. The petitioner was travelling from Kullu to Chandigarh and had crossed the Gara Maura Toll Plaza at 6.21 PM and entered the territory of Punjab at 7.00 PM. He had taken tea at a restaurant and paid ₹20/- through an online transaction. The petitioner has been behind bars for one year and five months. The trial is not progressing further, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. 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 party had set up a Naka at Karmala rain shelter on 04.11.2024 at about 10:20 PM. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-9360 came from Bilaspur, and the police signalled the driver to stop it. The police demanded the documents from the driver and enquired as to where he was going alone. The driver got frightened and could not give any satisfactory answer. The police joined Sandeep Kumar and Santosh Kumar and enquired about the name and address of the driver. The driver identified himself as Ajay Kumar (the present petitioner). The police checked the vehicle and recovered a carry bag containing 3.039 kilograms of cannabis. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the driver. The cannabis was sent to the FSL, and as per the result of analysis, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police also associated Nand Ram alias Nokhu Ram based on a disclosure statement made by the petitioner. The police filed the charge sheet on 24.03.2026, and the matter is listed before the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, on 16.05.2026 for the fixation of evidence. Hence, the status report.

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

5. Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JAjay Kumar – AppellantVersusState of HP – RespondentCr. MP(M) No. 393 of 2026

Cases Referred (11)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 393 of 2026