Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) No.732 of 2025
Reserved on : 28th April, 2025
Decided on : 5th May, 2025
Rakesh Kumar ...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. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Mohinder
Zharaick, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Rohit Sharma,
Deputy Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge
Applicant-Rakesh Kumar, has filed the present
application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the
pendnecy of trial, arising out of FIR No.105 of 2024, dated
25.04.2024, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
to as the 'NDPS Act'), with Police Station Nalagarh, District
Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has been named
as accused and arrested by the Police in the said case on
25.04.2024.
3. As per the applicant, he has no connection with
the contraband shown to be recovered by the Police, in this
case.
4. The applicant has termed the FIR registered
against him, as false, registered, on the basis of concocted
facts, by asserting the fact that he is an innocent person.
5. It is the further case of the applicant that
investigation, in the present case, is complete, as the Police
has filed the charge-sheet against him, which is pending in
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan. Hence, his
custodial interrogation is no longer required.
6. Apart from this, the applicant, has given certain
undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case,
ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the
trial.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the application.
8. When put to notice, the police has filed
the status report disclosing therein, that on 25.4.2024 HC
Rakesh Kumar No.42, I.O., along with other police officials,
had left Police Post Dabhota, for patrolling duty towards
Bhatiyan, Jhiriwala side.
8.1. At about 6.30 p.m., the I.O, along with other
police officials, was present on the link road from Jhiriwala
to Bhatiyan, then, the I.O, noticed a person coming on foot
from Jhiriwala side and he was moving towards Bhatiyan
side, having blue coloured carry bag in his hand. On
seeing the Police vehicle on the spot, the said person, at
once, turned towards Katcha path in the fields and had
started to run away. His activities raised suspicion, as
such, driver was directed to stop the vehicle and with the
help of other police official, the said person was nabbed.
8.2. On inquiry, the said person has disclosed his
name as Rakesh Kumar (applicant). Thereafter, a passer-
by, who has disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh, was
also apprised about the facts and was requested to
associate the police party as independent witness. In the
presence of said Balwinder Singh, when, the I.O. inquired
from Rakesh Kumar (applicant) about the carry bag, he
has disclosed that the said carry bag was containing
medicines.
8.3. On checking the same, it was found containing
another black coloured polythene envelope in it, which, on
opening, was found to be containing 16 strips, having 60
tablets, in each strip and 9 small strips, having 40 tablets,
in each strip, total 1320 tablets of Diphenoxylate
Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate.
8.4. The applicant could not produce a valid
document/licence to carry those 1320 lomotil tablets. As
such, all the tablets were put into the same packet and
were sealed with 3 seals of seal having impression 'M'.
8.5. Consequently, the said contraband was taken
into possession and rukka was sent to the Police Station
for registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested.
8.6. Thereafter, proceedings, under Section 52A of
the NDPS Act, were got conducted by producing the same
before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nalagarh and the contraband, so recovered, was sent to
SFSL Junga, from where, the following report has been
received, which has been reproduced, in the status report:-
"The exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil is a
sample of Diphenoxylate Tablets"
9. Lastly, it has been mentioned, in the status
report, that except the present case, no other case has
been found to be registered against the applicant.
10. The investigation is stated to be complete, as
the Police has submitted the charge-sheet, which is
pending adjudication, before the Court of learned Special
Judge, Solan and the case is listed for consideration of
charge on 16th June, 2025.
11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the application.
12. The contraband allegedly recovered, in the
present case, falls within the definition of 'commercial
quantity', as per entry number 44, in the notification
specifying 'small quantity' and 'commercial quantity' and in
view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh versus Mehboob Khan, 2013 (3)
Him.L.R. (FB) 1834), the entire contraband is to be
considered, as 'manufacturing drugs'.
13. The contraband, allegedly recovered, in this
case, is 1320 tablets of Lomotil, weighing 83.160 grams,
which falls within the definition of 'commercial quantity'.
14. Once, it has been held that the contraband
allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused 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. Considering all these facts, there is nothing on
the record, on the basis of which, it can be said, at this
stage, that the applicant has not committed the offence or
while on bail, he will not commit any offence. As such, no
case to pass any order in favour of the applicant, under
Section 483 BNSS, is made out, at this stage.
Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is
dismissed.
16. 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 )
Judge
May 05, 2025(ps)
