[Cites 27, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
2026:HHC:10208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 359, 363, 364, 365
.
and 368 of 2026
Reserved on: 30.03.2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026.
_____________________________________
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 359 of 2026
of
Swati ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
rt ...Respondent
______________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 363 of 2026
Karan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
______________________________________
3. Cr.MP(M) No. 364 of 2026
Suraj .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh .... Respondent
______________________________________
4. Cr.MP(M) No. 365 of 2026
Binta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
______________________________________
5. Cr.MP(M) No. 368 of 2026
Pawan Kumar Bhatti ...Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:31 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:10208
Versus
State of H.P. .... Respondent
.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, in
all the petitions except in Cr.MP No.
of
368 of 2026.
Mr Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for
the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 368 of
rt 2026.
For the Respondents/State: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for the
respondent/State, in all the
petitions.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for
seeking regular bail, in FIR No. 282 of 2025 dated 22.11.2025
registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, H.P., for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and
Sections 221 and 132 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Since
all the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR; therefore, they
are being taken up together for disposal.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2026:HHC:10208
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
police had set up a nakaa on 22.11.2025 at 7 AM at Bhatti Nala near
.
Sulatanpur-Chamba- Pathankot NH-154A. They received a secret
information that one Binta Mahajan and her son Aryan Mahajan
were dealing in heroin, and a huge quantity of heroin could be
recovered by searching their house. The police went to the house.
of
Binta Mahajan was not present in her home, but her son Aryan
was present. The police searched the house and recovered one
rt
electronic weighing machine, two burnt foil papers, one folded
and burnt ₹20/- currency note and one syringe. Binta Mahajan
also came to the spot and raised a hue and cry. One room was
locked. The police opened it and recovered a polythene bag
containing some material. The police also recovered 14 mobile
phones, several small packets containing 20.65 grams of heroin,
currency notes and jewellery. The petitioners are innocent, and
they were falsely implicated. The co-accused Rajesh Kumar,
Ankush Thakur, Sachin and Sorabh have been released on bail by
this Court. Sameer Ali and Sunil Kumar were released on bail by
learned Special Judge-II, District Chamba, H.P, Shimla. The police
have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the petitioners in custody. The petitioners
2026:HHC:10208
would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may
impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be
.
allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police received a secret information on
of
22.11.2015 that Binta Mahajan and her son Aryan Mahajan were
selling heroin, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered
rt
by searching their house. The information was credible, and it
was reduced to writing. It was sent to the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Chamba, who issued an authorisation
letter. The police associated Seema Kumari and Mahender Kumar
and went to the house of Binta Mahajan. The police found Aryan
Mahajan in the house. The police searched the house and
recovered an electronic weighing machine, two burnt foil papers,
one burnt and one folded currency note of ₹20/- and one syringe.
Binta Mahajan also came to the spot. The police conducted a
further search of the house and recovered 14 mobile phones,
jewellery, 20.65 grams of heroin, and ₹2,33,377/- in cash. The
petitioner, Swati, was found locked in a room. The police seized
all the articles and arrested the occupants. The investigation
revealed that Swati, Binta and Aryan Mahajan had sold the heroin
2026:HHC:10208
to Mukul Bhardwaj, Saurav, Sachin, Ankush, Rajesh, Karan, Suraj,
Kirpal, Vinod Kumar and other persons. There were financial
.
transactions between them. They were in constant touch with
each other. The petitioner Suraj had transferred ₹33,500/- to the
account of Aryan Mahajan and Binta Mahajan between January,
2025 and November, 2025. The petitioner Karan had transferred
of
₹35,100/- to the account of Aryan and Binta Mahajan between
February, 2025 and November, 2025. A total transaction of
rt
₹42,09,216/- was found in the petitioner Pawan Kumar's account
between 01.01.2025 and 28.11.2025. Aryan Mahajan and Binta
Mahajan had transferred ₹8,79,303/- to his account. Petitioner
Pawan Kumar Bhatti was the supplier of the heroin to petitioners
Binta and her son Aryan. The charge sheet was filed before the
Court on 20.1.2026. The prosecution has cited 41 witnesses.
Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel
for the petitioners Karan, Suraj, Binta and Swati and Mr Parveen
Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner Pawan Kumar Bhatti and
Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
2026:HHC:10208
5. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the
petitioners Karan, Suraj, Binta and Swati, submitted that the
.
petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The
quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police is
less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37
of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioners,
of
Binta Mahajan and Swati, are entitled to special consideration as
women. The police have filed the chargesheet, and no fruitful
rt
purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody.
The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the
Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be
allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
6. Mr Praveen Chauhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner Pawan Kumar Bhatti, submitted that there is no
material against the petitioner except the financial transaction,
which is not sufficient to connect him to the commission of a
crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and
that the petitioner, Pawan Kumar Bhatti, be released on bail.
7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents/State, submitted that petitioners
2026:HHC:10208
Binta and Swati were found in possession of heroin, a large
quantity of jewellery, and cash, which prima facie indicate their
.
involvement in the sale of heroin. This is confirmed by the fact
that various persons had transferred money to their accounts.
They had transferred a significant amount of money to petitioner
Pawan Kumar's account. Heroin adversely affects society, and no
of
leniency should be shown to the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed
that the present petitions be dismissed.
rt
8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
9. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC
314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:
(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. InGudikantis Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1
SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while
elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under
trial, has laid down the key factors that should be
considered while granting bail, which are extracted as
under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)
"7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the
vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be
liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.
2026:HHC:10208
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice
would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant
jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being.
.
[Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England"
(Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 -- Modern
Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
of
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who
is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record,
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to
commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to
rt
habituals, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of
society. Bail discretion, based on evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
with an application seeking bail. The same may be
extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner.
While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of
the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public or State and similar other considerations. It has also
to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail
2026:HHC:10208
the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for
believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court
dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself)
.
as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused
and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion
in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In
of
highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of
course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
rt
"3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order
for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case
to case. While the placement of the accused in society,
though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding
factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always
be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant
of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic
considerations for the grant of bail -- the more heinous is
the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail,
though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the
matter." (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is
established that a court considering a bail application
cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and
an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the
court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons
justifying the grant of bail.
2026:HHC:10208
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said
.
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of
mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with
regard to the circumstances under which an order granting
bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought
to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also
been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
of
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
rt
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail." (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx
2026:HHC:10208
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of
application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise
of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the
.
accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order
(Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856
and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857)
of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as
follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
of
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)
"35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight
rt
of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused
and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly,
when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or
vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material
brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima
facie conclusion. While considering an application for the
grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by
reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the
vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration
must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature
of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the
offence(s) alleged against an accused." (emphasis
supplied)
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC
261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the
gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests
otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
2026:HHC:10208
2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,
except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing
from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating
.
other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who
seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not
intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely
to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and
must weigh with us when considering the question of jail.
of
So also, the heinousness of the crime...."
11. The present petitions have to be decided as per the
rt
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. The status report mentions that the police searched
the house of Binta Mahajan, where Aryan and Swati were present.
The police recovered 20.65 grams of heroin, an electronic
weighing machine, transparent polythene packets containing
traces of heroin, ₹2,33,377/-, a huge quantity of jewellery, and 14
mobile phones from the house. Binta also arrived during the
search. She and Swati created a hue and cry and obstructed the
police from searching the house. All these circumstances prima-
facie shows the involvement of the petitioners, Binta and Swati, in
the commission of the crime.
13. The status report also mentions that the petitioners,
Karan and Suraj, were arrested based on the financial
2026:HHC:10208
transactions made by them to the account of the petitioner Binta
and her son Aryan. The status report also mentions that money
.
was transferred by petitioners Binta Mahajan and Aryan Mahajan
to the account of Pawan Kumar Bhatti. There is no other material
to connect them to the heroin. The mere transfer of money is
insufficient to connect the petitioners, Pawan, Suraj and Karan, to
of
the commission of crime. It was laid down by the Kerala High
Court in Amal E vs State of Kerala 2023:KER:39393 that financial
rt
transactions are not sufficient to connect the accused with the
commission of crime. It was observed:
"From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that,
apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to
show the involvement of the petitioners. It is true that the
documents indicate the monetary transactions between the
petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the
question that arises is whether the said transactions were
in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish
the same, apart from the confession statements of the
accused, there is nothing. However, as it is an aspect to be
established during the trial, I do not intend to enter into
any finding at this stage, but the said aspect is sufficient to
record the satisfaction of the conditions contemplated
under section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such
materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the involvement
of the petitioner."
14. The police also relied upon the call detail record to
conclude that the petitioners had talked to the co-accused. This is
2026:HHC:10208
also not sufficient. It was laid down by this Court in Dinesh Kumar
@ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri. L.J. 4564, that the phone calls
.
are not sufficient to deny bail to a person.
15. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of
Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 211 that the petitioner
of
cannot be kept in custody based on the call detail records. It was
observed: -
rt
"[16] In the facts of the instant case, the prosecution, for
implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the
confessional statement made by accused Dabe Ram and
secondly the CDR details of calls exchanged between the
petitioner and the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking
into consideration the evidence with respect to the
availability of CDR details involving the phone number of
the petitioner and the mobile phone number of the wife of
co-accused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the
existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner and
had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the
conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
[17] Since the existence of CDR details of accused person(s)
has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to
hold a prima facie case against the accused person(s), in
Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), this Court is of the view
that petitioner has made out a case for maintainability of
his successive bail application as also for grant of bail in his
favour.
[18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure
statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to
have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure
made by the co-accused cannot be read against the
petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme
2026:HHC:10208
Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC 1.
Further, on the basis of the aforesaid elucidation, the
petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail.
.
16. A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs.
State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023,
Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023, decided on
06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of
of
2023, decided on 15.05.2023.
17. The police have also added Section 27A of the NDPS
rt
Act, which deals with the financing of drugs. The term financing
was explained by the Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty v.
Union of India 2021 Cr LJ 248 as under: -
"66. Section 27A is much wider if sub-clause (iv) of
Section 2(viiia) is taken into account. This sub-clause (iv)
of Section 2(viiia) takes in its sweep all the remaining
activities which are not mentioned in sub-clauses (i),(ii) &
(iii). This covers just about every activity that can be
described as dealing in narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances. The interpretation of Section 27A should not
be stretched to the extent of rendering the classification of
sentences depending on the quantities in penal Sections
20, 21, 22 and 23 otiose.
67. Sub-clause (viiia) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act is an
inclusive definition. The inclusive part mentions financing,
abetting, conspiring and harbouring. The financing and
harbouring parts are specifically made punishable under
Section 27A.
68. The activities mentioned in Section 2(viiia)(iii) and Section
8(c) refer to sale, purchase, export, import, etc. All these
2026:HHC:10208
activities involve monetary transactions. For every sale or
purchase, there can be a use of money. But that will not mean
that either of the parties has "financed" the transaction. Such
.
sales and purchases are separately prohibited and made
punishable under Section 8(c), read with Section 20 and other
similar Sections. Therefore, "financing" is something more
than just paying for purchases and other activities involving
contraband as defined under Section 8(c). Contravention of
that Section and indulging in activities mentioned in Sections
20, 21, 22 and 23 incur punishment depending on the quantity
of
of the contraband.
69. For interpreting Section 27A harmoniously with the
Scheme of the Act and other Sections, it is necessary to go
to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for incorporating
rt
this Section in the Act w.e.f. 29.5.1989. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the 1989 Amendment, which is
reproduced hereinbefore, mentions that India was facing a
problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spillover from
such traffic was causing problems of abuse and addiction.
Therefore, a need was felt to amend the Law to further
strengthen it.
70. Thus, the aim was to control the traffic in illicit drugs
as the spillover from such traffic was causing problems of
abuse and addiction. The Legislature wanted to attack the
basic cause of the illicit traffic of drugs. The prohibitory
Section 8 already existed at that time. Therefore, a separate
Section 27A was introduced to check these activities, which
were the root cause of illicit traffic. "Financing" and
"harbouring" such activities were, therefore, specifically
mentioned under Section 27A.
71. "Financing" is not defined under the Act. The Concise
Oxford Dictionary defines the word "finance" as "(1) the
management of (esp. public) money, (2) monetary support
for an enterprise, (3) (in pl.) the money resources of a
state, company, or person, to provide capital for (a person
or enterprise)".
2026:HHC:10208
72. Black's Law Dictionary gives the meaning of the word
"finance" as "to raise or provide funds".
73. Thus, "financing" as generally understood is offering
.
monetary support or providing funds.
74. Therefore, simply providing money for a particular
transaction or other transactions will not be financing of that
activity. Financing will have to be interpreted to mean to
provide funds for either making that particular activity
operational or for sustaining it. It is the financial support that
of
directly or indirectly causes the existence of such illicit traffic.
The word "financing" would necessarily refer to some
activities involving illegal trade or business
75. The allegations against the Applicant of spending
rt
money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput will
not, therefore, mean that she had financed illicit traffic."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, the purchase of the drugs will not amount to
financing, and the petitioners, Karan and Suraj, cannot be prima
facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.
19. The petitioners, Binta and Swati, were found in
possession of 20.65 grams of heroin as per the status report. It
was submitted that it is an intermediate quantity and the rigours
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case, and
the petitioners are entitled to bail as a matter of right. This
submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by this Court in
Khushi Ram Gupta v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 3779, that
2026:HHC:10208
the menace of drug addiction has seriously eroded into the fabric
of society, and the release of an accused on bail in NDPS Act cases
.
will send a negative signal to society. It was observed:
"8. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents
and students, has seriously eroded into the fabric of society,
putting the future generation as well as the prospects of
future nation-building into serious peril.
of
9. It is not a case where the investigating agency is clueless
in respect of evidence against the petitioner. Though
allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved in
accordance with the law, it cannot be taken singly as a factor
rt
to grant bail to the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on
record on behalf of the petitioner to divulge as to how and in
what manner he came in contact with the persons who were
residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, there is
sufficient prima facie material to infer the implication of the
petitioner in the crime. In such circumstances, the release of
the petitioner on bail will send a negative signal in society,
which will definitely be detrimental to its interests.
10. The prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the
dangerous trade of contraband cannot be ignored merely on
account of the fact that he has no past criminal history. It
cannot be guaranteed that there will be re-indulgence by the
petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released on
bail."
20. Similarly, it was held in Bunty Yadav v. State of H.P.,
2022 SCC OnLine HP 4996, that the bail cannot be claimed as a
matter of right even though the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act do not apply to a case. Each case has to be adjudged on its own
facts. It was observed:
2026:HHC:10208
"6. The quantity involved in the case is 89.89 grams of
heroin and 3.90 grams of MDMA. Such quantity may not
technically fall under the category of commercial quantity;
.
nevertheless, such quantity cannot be termed to be less by
any stretch of the imagination. The evident nature of
commercial transactions and dealing with the contraband
aggravates the situation for the petitioner. In a case where
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, the bail cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. The fate depends on the
facts of each and every case.
of
7. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents
and students, has seriously eroded into the fabric of
society, putting the future generation as well as the
prospects of future nation-building into serious peril."
21.
rt
It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) 9792/2025,
decided on 07.11.2025, that there is a concerning increase in drug
abuse amongst the youth. It was observed: -
8. This Court is of the view that the issue of substance
abuse has emerged as a global public health crisis in the
twenty-first century, affecting every country worldwide,
as drug trafficking and addiction have become pervasive.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
reported in its 2025 World Drug Report that "As at 2023,
some 316 million people worldwide had used drugs in the
past year, representing an increase over the past decade
that outpaces population growth, which indicates a higher
prevalence of drug use."
9. In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug
abuse among the youth. Substance abuse not only affects
individuals, families, and communities but also
undermines various aspects of health, including physical,
social, political, and cultural foundations, and mental
well-being. (See: "Bhattacharya S, Menon GS, Garg S,
2026:HHC:10208
Grover A, Saleem SM, Kushwaha P. The lingering menace
of drug abuse among the Indian youth-it's time for action.
Indian J Community Med 2025;50:S9-12, published on 17th
.
April, 2025")
10. According to many news reports, India faces a clear
dilemma between tackling the narcotics crisis
systematically or sacrificing its most valuable resource, i.e.
its young people. The extent of menace of drug abuse has
also been highlighted by this Court in the case of Ankush
Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency, (2025) 5 SCC
of
155, wherein this Court has observed as under:
"9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the
length and breadth of our country, with the Central
rt
and every State Government fighting against the
menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact
of the drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and
serious concern for India. As the globe grapples with
the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders
("SUD") and an ever accessible drug market, the
imprint on public health and even national security.
Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the
State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition
and the standard of living of its people and the
improvement of public health as among its primary
duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to
bring about prohibition of the consumption except
for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of
drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a
responsibility to address the root causes of this
predicament and develop effective intervention
strategies to ensure that India's younger population,
which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse,
is protected and saved from such a menace. This is
particularly because substance abuse is linked to
social problems and can contribute to child
maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property
crime in a family."
2026:HHC:10208
22. Hence, the petitioners, Binta and Swati, cannot be
released on bail merely because the rigours of Section 37 of the
.
NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.
23. The status report shows that the petitioners, Binta and
Swati, were not only found in possession of heroin but also in
of
possession of currency notes of ₹2,33,337/-, small packets of
polythene, 14 mobile phones and a huge quantity of jewellery.
rt
Prima-facie the recovery of the small packets containing the
traces of heroin, a huge quantity of jewelry and financial
transactions in the account of the petitioners shows that they are
drug dealers and no leniency can be shown to them. Further, the
status report shows that FIR No. 167 of 2024 was registered
against the petitioner Binta Mahajan, which is pending before the
Court. Therefore, these circumstances will disentitle petitioners
Binta and Swati from the concession of bail.
24. In view of the above, the petitions filed by Swati and
Bimla are dismissed while the petitions filed by Pawan Kumar
Bhatti, Karan and Suraj are allowed and they are ordered to be
released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum
of ₹1,00,000/-each with one surety each in the like amount to the
2026:HHC:10208
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the
petitioners will abide by the following conditions: -
.
(I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor
will they influence any evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(II) The petitioners shall attend the trial on each and every
hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.
of
(III) The petitioners will not leave the present address for a
continuous period of seven days without furnishing the
address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the
Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.
rt
(IV) The petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to
the Court; and
(V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number and
social media contact to the Police and the Court and will
abide by the summons/notices received from the
Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media
Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or
social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the
Police/Court within five days from the date of the
change.
25. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file
petitions for cancellation of the bail.
26. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of
this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of District-cum-
Open Air Jail Chamba, District Chamba and the learned Trial Court
by FASTER.
2026:HHC:10208
27. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever,
.
on the case's merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
6th April, 2026
(Nikita)
of
rt
