1 ( 2025:HHC:20035 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1285 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 Les Ram …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant : Mr. Rajiv Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Applicant-Les Ram has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 212 of 2023, dated 06.11.2023, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS’ Act), with Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20035 ) 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, at the instance of the police. 3. The applicant has further pleaded that the investigation, in the present case, is complete and despite the fact that he is in judicial custody, for the last one year and six months, the trial against him could not be concluded. 4. Apart from this, learned counsel 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. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present application, as prayed for. 6. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 06.11.2023, ASI Mukesh Kumar, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to excise and narcotics and they proceeded towards the place known as Hathithan- Seund. On 06.11.2023 at about 6:45 PM, when, IO, along with the other police officials, was present at a place known as Seund on Manikaran road and was checking the vehicles passing from there, then, IO noticed a person, having a Pithu 3 ( 2025:HHC:20035 ) bag (rucksack) coming on his foot, from Charod Nalla side. He on seeing the police party, got perplexed and tried to turn back and he threw the rucksack on the right side of the road and start moving in fast paces towards Charod Nalla side, upon which, ASI Mukesh Kumar, nabbed him at a distance of about 10 to 15 paces. 6.1. It is the case of the police that thereafter, the matter was enquired from the said person, as to why, he had thrown the bag, upon which, he got nervous. In the meanwhile, vehicle No.HP34F-3355 being driven by its driver reached there from Manikaran side, to whom, ASI Mukesh Kumar gave signal to stop the vehicle. Consequently, the driver stopped the vehicle. On inquiry, the said driver disclosed his name as Tikam Ram. IO apprised him about the factual position and requested him to be the independent witness, upon which, he has given his consent. Thereafter, the name and address of the person, who was nabbed, were ascertained. 6.2. It is the further case of the police that on enquiry, the person, who was nabbed, disclosed his name as Les Ram (applicant). When, the bag, thrown by him, was checked, the same was found containing black coloured ball shaped, 4 ( 2025:HHC:20035 ) wrapped in plastic substance. On weighment, it was found to be 1 kg. 654 grams charas, which was taken into possession. Other codal formalities were completed. 6.3. After registration of the FIR, the applicant was arrested. 6.4. Thereafter, the proceedings, under Section 52(A) of NDPS Act, were got conducted and the contraband was sent to SFSL Junga. After receiving the positive report, police has filed the charge-sheet before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, on 19.12.2023. Out of the total 12 witnesses, 6 witness have already been examined and the case is now stated to be listed on 26/27.08.2025 for recording the statements of PWs mentioned at serial No.1, 2 and 10 of the witness list. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. Heard. 9. In the present case, the contraband, allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, as per the status report, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. 5 ( 2025:HHC:20035 ) 10. Once, the contraband, so recovered, from the alleged possession of the applicant, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, then, before releasing the applicant on bail, in such a heinous offence, it is mandatory for this Court to satisfy itself about the existence of twin conditions and it is incumbent upon this Court to give findings, with regard to fulfillment of twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37(b) of the NDPS Act. These conditions are (i) that the applicant has not committed the offence, for which, he has been arrested, and (ii) that while on bail, he will not commit any offence. The existence of the twin conditions, in favour of the applicant, is a sine qua non for releasing a person, involving in commercial quantity of contraband. 11. From the stand, as taken by the applicant, as well as, the stand as taken by the prosecution, it is not possible for this Court, at this stage, to arrive at a conclusion to conclude that the applicant has not committed an offence and while on bail, he will not commit any offence. 12. So far as the another ground, upon which, the bail has been sought that the applicant in the judicial custody for the last one year and six months, is concerned, considering the pace of the trial, according to which, out of 12 prosecution 6 ( 2025:HHC:20035 ) witnesses, 6 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the case is now listed on 26/27.08.2025 for recording the statements of PWs at Serial No.1, 2 and 10, this Court is of the view that there is no inordinate delay in the trial against the applicant. 13. 13. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not able to make out a case for his release on bail. 14. Consequently, the present bail application is dismissed. 15. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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 June 25, 2025 (subhash)