Reserved On : 18Th July vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2517 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On : 18Th July vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 July, 2025

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

1 2025:HHC:24261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMP(M) No. : 1556 of 2025

.

                                                 Reserved on : 18th July, 2025





                                                 Decided on : 25th July, 2025





    Yog Raj                                                               ...Applicant

                                              Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                             ...Respondent


    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General

with Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge

Applicant­Yog Raj, has filed the present

application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'),

seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial,

in a case, arising out of FIR No.14/2023, dated 6th

February, 2023, registered with Police Station, Patlikuhal,

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2025:HHC:24261

District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 20 and 25 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

.

(hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act').

2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been

implicated, in this case, and wrongly arrested by the police.

3. As per the case of the applicant, investigation in

the present case is complete, as such, no useful purpose

would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody.

4. It is the further case of the applicant that there

is huge difference in the quantity allegedly recovered and

the quantity received in SFSL, as such, the entire case of

the prosecution comes under the cloud of suspicion.

5. As per the applicant, there is no legally

admissible evidence, connecting the applicant with the

alleged offence.

6. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of 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.

3 2025:HHC:24261

7. Earlier, the applicant has filed similar

applications, before this Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1738

.

of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No.67 of 2025, which were

dismissed as withdrawn on 4.11.2024 and 10.01.2025,

respectively. Thereafter, the applicant has filed Cr.MP(M)

No.432 of 2025, which was also dismissed by this Court on

22.03.2025.

8. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Vinod

Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has prayed

that the applicant, in the present case, has duly fulfilled

the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. When put to notice, police has filed the status

report, disclosing therein, that on 06.02.2023, HC Sandeep

Kumar No.23, along with other police official, was on

patrolling duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics.

9.1. At about 11.30 a.m., when, the police party was

present near Patlikuhal bridge, then, the I.O., received a

secret information that one Yog Raj, who is coming in white

coloured van, bearing registration No.HP34B­1895, from

Sekri and will reach between 1.00­2.00 p.m. at Patlikuhal.

4 2025:HHC:24261

As per the information, in case, he is nabbed in between,

large quantity of Charas can be recovered.

.

9.2. According to the I.O., in case, he obtains the

search warrants, the said vehicle can not be nabbed and

possibility of removal of the contraband is also there.

9.3. The information was found to be authentic and

reliable, as such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions

of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same

to his superior officer.

9.4. Thereafter, the police had made efforts to

search the independent witnesses, but, due to heavy snow

fall, no independent witness was found. Thereafter, at

about 12.55 p.m., they had put the picketing at zero point

Segali and from there, the I.O, had called the Pradhan of

Gram Panchayat and requested him to come to the spot,

along with other person.

9.5. Due to heavy snow fall, no vehicle was found to

be passing from the spot. However, at about 1.30 p.m., the

I.O. noticed a white colour van, coming from Sekari side.

The I.O. had made a plan to stop the said vehicle by

parking another vehicle bearing No.HP49­1607, in the

5 2025:HHC:24261

middle of the road. Thereafter, the vehicle was got

stopped, and the driver, at once, had tried to flee away,

.

however, with the help of other police officials, he was

nabbed.

9.6. At about 1.40 p.m., Pradhan Gram Panchayat,

Vijay Prakash, along with other person Om Prakash

reached there. The person, who was nabbed, disclosed his

name as Yog Raj (applicant).

9.7. Thereafter, the car was searched and during

search, a black coloured rucksack was found, which, on

opening, was found containing a black coloured substance.

On smelling, the contraband was found to be cannabis and

on weighment, the same was found to be 2 kilograms 49

grams.

9.8. Thereafter, ruqua was submitted to the Police

Station for registration of FIR.

9.9. After completing other codal formalities, the

contraband, so recovered, was taken into possession and

the accused (applicant) was arrested.

6 2025:HHC:24261

10. After completion of investigation, the final

report was filed in the competent Court of law, in which the

.

learned Special Judge, Kullu has taken the cognizance.

11. As per the status report, out of 17 prosecution

witnesses, 9 have been examined and the case is now fixed

for recording the statements of two prosecution witnesses

i.e. at Sl. No.15 and 16, on 01.11.2025.

12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the application.

13. The applicant, in the present case, has been

arrested, under the provisions of NDPS Act. The

legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted this statute to curb

the menace of drug abuse with stringent punishment.

Certain conditions are there, in the NDPS Act, in the shape

of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which are, in addition to the

conditions, as contained in Section 483 of the BNSS.

Before releasing a person on bail, those conditions, as

enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are to be

fulfilled, if the accused has been arrested for the offence,

involving commercial quantity of contraband.

7 2025:HHC:24261

14. Once, it has been held that the contraband

allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused

.

(applicant) falls in the category of 'commercial quantity', as

per the Notification issued by the Central Government,

then, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into

play.

15. The contraband allegedly recovered from the

applicant, admittedly, r falls within the definition of

'commercial quantity'. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of

NDPS Act are applicable, in this case.

16. In a recent decision, in case, titled as

Narcotics Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal,

reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has reiterated the earlier view regarding compliance

of the conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS

Act. The relevant paras 10 to 15 of the judgment are

reproduced, as under:

"10. The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act read as follows:

"[37. Offences to be cognizable and non­ bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)­

8 2025:HHC:24261

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence

.

punishable for [offences under section 19 or

section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless­

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and rthat he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.

11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non­

obstante clause inserted in sub­section (1) and the conditions imposed in subsection (2) of Section 37

that there are certain restrictions placed on the power of the Court when granting bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the

NDPS Act. Not only are the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in sub­section (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be

9 2025:HHC:24261

satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

12. The expression "reasonable grounds" has

.

come up for discussion in several rulings of this

Court. In "Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira", (2004) 3 SCC 549, a decision rendered by a Three Judges Bench of this

Court, it has been held thus:

"7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity

to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present accused respondent is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for

believing that the accused is not guilty of the

alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on

reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It

contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is

not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in

themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence." [emphasis added]

13. The expression "reasonable ground" came up for discussion in "State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh and others" (2020) 12 SCC 122 and this Court has observed as below:

"20. The expression "reasonable grounds"

means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable

2025:HHC:24261 causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and

.

circumstances as are sufficient in

themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court

seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal

approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for." [emphasis added]

14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable

grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub­Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible

and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a

case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove­tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional

consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court

is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been

2025:HHC:24261 charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail."

.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case,

Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024, titled as 'Narcotics

Control Bureau versus Kashif', Neutral Citation No.

2024 INSC 1045, has again reiterated the law, as

enumerated by it, in Mohit Aggarwal's case (supra). The

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the

provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in

nature. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 39 of the said judgment

are reproduced, as under:

"8. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten

years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for

bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in

Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. Apart from the granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions i.e.,

(i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions.

                            xxx              xxx            xxx






                                         2025:HHC:24261

39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under:

(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be

.

interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and

purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.

(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is

sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.

(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying

down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs

and psychotropic substances.

(iv) Sub­section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub­section (1)

thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity

which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.

(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.

(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court

2025:HHC:24261 will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act."

.

(self­emphasis supplied)

18. In view of the above, there is nothing on the

record to give an occasion for this Court to hold that the

twin conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS

Act, are in favour of the applicant, in the present case.

19. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel

for the applicant qua the fact that there is huge difference

between the quantity of the contraband, which has

allegedly been recovered and weighed by the I.O., as well

as, the quantity of the contraband received in the

Laboratory, is concerned, the said factual aspect can only

be considered by the learned trial Court and the same

cannot be considered by this Court, that too, while

deciding the question of bail, in a commercial quantity.

Even if the said argument is considered, this Court is of

the view that the twin conditions, as enumerated, under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, do not exist in favour of the

applicant.

2025:HHC:24261

20. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the

view that the applicant is not able to make out a case, on

.

the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant has not

committed the offence and in case, he is ordered to be

released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. As

such, in the absence of the satisfaction of the twin

conditions, the applicant is not held entitled for any relief,

under Section 483 of the BNSS.

r Consequently, the bail

application is dismissed.

21. Any of the observations, made herein above,

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the

merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,

only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

                                            ( Virender Singh )
    July 25, 2025 ( ps )                          Judge