Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Bhupinder Dutta – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) Nos. : 256 & 414 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.S. Chandel, Shwetima Dogra, Kanika Verma, Mercy Hussain, Servedaman Rathore
For the Respondents: Tejasvi Sharma, H.S. Rawat, Mohinder Zharaick, Shakti Singh, Vijay Pal

In cases involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, the court must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring more than prima facie grounds to believe the accused is innocent and unlikely to commit further offences before granting bail.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Arrest procedure - Obligation for written communication of grounds of arrest was not mandated for all offences consistently prior to recent judicial clarifications, and subsequent procedural updates govern current bail applications. (Paras 37, 38)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37(1)(b) - Bail in cases involving commercial quantity - Twin conditions - Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail - Such satisfaction requires substantial probable causes, not merely prima facie grounds. (Paras 19, 21)

(C) Bail - Evaluation of evidence - Credibility and evidentiary value of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and witness statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - While detailed discussion of evidence is avoided to prevent prejudice, courts must weigh material on record to satisfy the statutory threshold for bail in narcotics cases. (Paras 27, 29, 31, 34)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought regular bail for their alleged involvement in an interstate drug trafficking network involving the transportation of prohibited substances. The prosecution alleged that the applicants used forged documents and logistics chains to facilitate the movement of large quantities of psychotropic substances, which fall under the category of commercial quantity. The applicants challenged the procedural aspects of their arrest and the quality of evidence, including CDRs and statements made by witnesses, arguing that their involvement was not substantiated.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that since the recovered contraband amounted to a commercial quantity, the rigorous conditions of the narcotics law regarding bail applied. The court noted that the documentary evidence, including invoices and transport records, strongly linked the illicit consignments to businesses associated with the accused. Furthermore, the court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, it could not reach a conclusion that the accused were not guilty or would not repeat the offence if released.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite the recovery of commercial quantities of contraband and whether the procedural challenge regarding the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest held merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an offence involves a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, the court must be satisfied of the dual requirements under the relevant narcotics legislation. Because the evidence, including transport records and witness statements, prima facie linked the applicants to the illegal conspiracy, the court could not record the required satisfaction regarding their innocence, and thus the applications for bail were impermissible.

Result: Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicants seek bail claiming innocence and procedural irregularity in arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. detailed investigation into commercial quantity drug smuggling conspiracy. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. bail denied due to non-satisfaction of section 37 ndps act criteria. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. insufficient evidence for bail despite limitations of cdr and witness statements. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. bail applications dismissed as no grounds for release established. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

Whether approved for reporting?¹

The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by the common order, as, both the bail applications have been filed by the applicants, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), for releasing them on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 125/2023, dated 15.09.2023, registered with Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 22 , 25, 29 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ND&PSAct’), read with Sections 201, 465, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

2. According to the applicants, they are innocent and falsely been implicated, in the present case. The investigation is stated to be complete and police has filed the charge-sheet.

3. Apart from this, both the petitioners have pleaded that they have no role in the commission of alleged crime, and both of them have taken the plea that they have falsely been implicated, in this case.

4. It is the further case of the applicants that chances of conclusion of trial against them, in near future, are not so bright and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in judicial custody, as both the applicants are in judicial custody.

5. According to the applicant Bhupinder Dutta, he was arrested on 15.09.2024 and at the time of arrest, the Investigating Officer has not informed the accused about the grounds of his arrest, nor the same have been supplied to him, as mandated under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India.

6. According to the applicant Samta Aggarwal, she was arrested on 18.07.2025. According to her, the only evidence against her is the statements of Aman Kumar and Naresh Kumar Miglani, and those two statements are too short to connect her with the crime in question. It is her further case that statements of those two witnesses were recorded by the police at a belated stage. Apart from this, according to her, she has been arrested, in this case, on the basis of her alleged telephonic conversation with Sahil Goswami on 06.09.2023 and 07.09.2023.

7. According to her, she had talked with Sahil Goswami, as her husband was arrested on 01.09.2023, and was lodged in Patiala Jail and in order to engage a lawyer for her husband, she had talked to Sahil Goswami.

8. Both the applicants have given the history of earlier bail applications moved by them.

9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by the applicants to release them on bail, as the conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 (i)(b)(ii) of the ND&PS Act, are existing in their favour.

10. Both the applicants have given certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, released on bail, during the pendency of trial.

11. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 15.9.2023, Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Rajender Kumar, ANTF Kangra, has submitted the ruqua to Police of Gagret, for the registration of the FIR. In the ruqua, it has been mentioned by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shri Rajender Kumar, ANTF, Kangra that he, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty and the duty to detect the crime, relating to narcotic drugs.

11.1 On 15.9.2023, at about 7: 30 p.m., he i.e. I.O. was present o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAVirender Singh, JBhupinder Dutta – AppellantVersusState of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr.MP(M) Nos. : 256 & 414 of 2026

In cases involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, the court must satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring more than prima facie grounds to believe the accused is innocent and unlikely to commit further offences before granting bail.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Bhupinder Dutta – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) Nos. : 256 & 414 of 2026