NARESH KUMAR vs STATE OF HP - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2497

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 15, 29, 37 and 52A - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22(1) - Bail application - Commercial quantity of poppy husk recovered - Parity with co-accused - Twin conditions of Section 37 - Written grounds of arrest - Principle of parity is inapplicable where the co-accused's involvement was based on the main accused's revelation, which is inadmissible evidence, whereas the main accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. (Para 11)

(B) In cases involving commercial quantities, compliance with the twin conditions under Section 37 is mandatory: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. (Paras 12-17)

(C) The requirement for written communication of the grounds of arrest is prospective and applies only to arrests made after the date of the judicial decision establishing such a mandate. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:
An applicant was arrested after 60.983 kg of poppy husk was recovered from his residence and cowshed. A co-accused was subsequently arrested based on the applicant's disclosure. The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused, who had been released, and the failure of the arresting officer to provide written grounds for arrest.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the recovered quantity was commercial. It determined that the twin conditions for granting bail under Section 37 were not fulfilled and that parity was not applicable because the roles of the accused differed. It further held that the mandate for written grounds of arrest was prospective and did not apply to the applicant's prior arrest date.

Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on parity with a co-accused, whether the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37 were satisfied, and whether the lack of written grounds for arrest entitles the accused to release given the prospective nature of the legal mandate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the twin conditions of Section 37 are sine qua non for bail in commercial quantity cases. Parity cannot be claimed when the evidence against the applicant (direct recovery) differs from the basis of the co-accused's release (inadmissible disclosure). Furthermore, the requirement for written grounds of arrest applies only to arrests made after the date of the governing Supreme Court ruling.

Result: Bail application is dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Bail application under NDPS Act — Commercial quantity recovery — Applicant seeks bail during trial. (Para 1 , 9 )

2. Applicant seeks bail on parity and lack of written grounds of arrest; State opposes citing commercial quantity and Section 37 twin conditions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 )

3. Bail application dismissed for failure to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act. (Para 20 , 21 )

4. What are the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act for granting bail in commercial quantity cases?

The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; conditions are cumulative. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )

5. What does 'reasonable grounds' mean under Section 37 NDPS Act?

Reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds, requiring substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty. (Para 13 , 14 )

6. Does the principle of parity apply when co-accused is released on bail in NDPS cases?

Parity does not apply if the co-accused was released based on inadmissible evidence while the applicant had recovery from his possession. (Para 11 )

7. Is the requirement of written communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) retrospective or prospective?

The requirement is prospective from the date of decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (6.11.2025) and does not apply to arrests made before that date. (Para 18 , 19 )

Bail Application

Virender Singh, Judge

1. Applicant-Naresh Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 279 of 2024, dated 29.09.2024, registered under Sections 15 and 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, whereas, he has no concern with the crime in question.

3. The applicant has further pleaded that except the present case, no other case has been registered against him and he is no longer required by the police, for the investigation, of the case.

4. The applicant had earlier tried his luck by moving Cr. MP(M) No. 69 of 2025, before this Court, which was withdrawn on 24.02.2025. Thereafter, he has again filed Cr. MP(M) No. 1474 of 2025 before this Court, which was again dismissed as withdrawn on 04.07.2025. The applicant has again moved Cr. MP(M) No. 2527 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.10.2025. Thereafter, he has tired his luck before the learned Special Judge-III Solan, District Solan, H.P. However, the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 30.10.2025. Thereafter, he again filed Cr.MP(M) No. 2631 of 2025 before this Court, and the same was dismissed on 28.11.2025.

5. According to the applicant, he got the copy of challan on 30.10.2025 and came to know that while arresting him, no ground of arrest was told to him. Hence, there is complete violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

6. It has been argued by learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that his co-accused Dharam Pal, has been released on bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 2456 of 2025. As such, on the ground of parity, relief of bail has also been sought.

7. Apart from this, Mr. Chetan Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

9. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 29.09.2024, ASI Ranjeet Singh, along with the other police officials, in private Vehicle No.HP20E-7521 and HP1H2J-6915, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to excise and narcotics, in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Nalagarh. When they were present near playground, in village Tirla, then, at about 1:00 PM, he received a secret information, about the indulgence of Naresh Kumar, resident of Mahua, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (applicant), in the illegal business of selling poppy husk. As per the information, Naresh Kumar (applicant) is selling poppy husk to customers at his residence and has concealed the poppy husk in his residential house, as well as, in his Cowshed.

9.1. As per the information, in case, said Naresh Kumar (applicant) is nabbed and his house and cowshed are searched, then, large quantity of poppy husk could be recovered. According to the IO, if, he would have obtained the search warrants, then, delay could have occurred and in that eventuality, there were chances of removal of contraband from there.

9.2. As the information was found authentic and reliable, a report under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, was prepared and submitted to SDPO Nalagarh. Thereafter, they proceeded towards the spot and when, they reached outside village Mahua, Sanjay Kumar son of Kamal Nayan met him, who was apprised about the factual position and was associated in the raiding party, as independent witness. Thereafter, the I.O. along with Sanjay Kumar, reached the residentia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
NARESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CRMPM/642/2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act for granting bail in commercial quantity cases?

5. What does 'reasonable grounds' mean under Section 37 NDPS Act?

6. Does the principle of parity apply when co-accused is released on bail in NDPS cases?

7. Is the requirement of written communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) retrospective or prospective?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGHNARESH KUMAR – AppellantVersusSTATE OF HP – RespondentCRMPM/642/2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act for granting bail in commercial quantity cases?

5. What does 'reasonable grounds' mean under Section 37 NDPS Act?

6. Does the principle of parity apply when co-accused is released on bail in NDPS cases?

7. Is the requirement of written communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) retrospective or prospective?

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
NARESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CRMPM/642/2026