1 2025:HHC:15454 2025:HHC:15454 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 999 of 2025 Reserved on : 15.5.2025 Decided on : 23.5.2025 Kehar Singh …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Parikshit Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge The applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) in case FIR No. 41 of 2023, dated 11.2.2023, under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS”) 2 2025:HHC:15454 registered with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in the present case, as he is an innocent person and has nothing to do with the alleged offence, for which, he has been arrested by the Police. 3. Applicant has further pleaded that investigation, in the present case, is complete, as such, his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the Police. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that applicant is entitled for bail on account of undue delay in the conclusion of trial, as applicant is in judicial custody, since 11.2.2023, and even after a period of two years and two months, prosecution could not conclude the trial against him. 5. Further elaborating this fact, it is the case of the applicant that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined till date and the case is now listed for 26.5.2025 for examining only two witnesses. 3 2025:HHC:15454 6. The applicant has further pleaded that he has no concern whatsoever with the vehicle No.HP-12P-3137, from which, the contraband allegedly has been stated to be recovered. 7. The applicant has earlier tried his luck by moving bail application No. 2885 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn, on 26.12.2024. 8. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 9. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 10. When, put to notice, Police has filed status report, disclosing therein, that on 11.2.2023, ASI Naresh Kumar, Incharge, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty, and on duty to collect the information regarding the crime, was present near playground in village Tirla. At about 12 noon, he received a secret information regarding the indulgence of Kehar Singh 4 2025:HHC:15454 (applicant) alongwith his companion Vir Singh, in the business of selling poppy husk. Vir Singh is stated to be the driver of vehicle No. HP 12P-3137 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘vehicle in question’). 10.1 As per the information, both these persons were present near the house of Kehar Singh (applicant) and they intend to sell poppy husk. The poppy husk is stated to be concealed in the vehicle in question and in the house of Kehar Singh (applicant). 10.2 On the basis of above information, the I.O. complied with the provisions of Section 42 (2) NDPS Act. The I.O. proceeded towards the spot and on the way, he associated Prem Lal and Mohd. Rafi, to whom, he had apprised about the information and associated in the investigation of the case, as independent witnesses. Thereafter, they reached at the house of Kehar Singh (applicant). 10.3 On the front side of the house of Kehar Singh (applicant), near cowshed, the aforesaid vehicle in question was found to be parked. On the back side of the 5 2025:HHC:15454 vehicle in question, two persons were found standing there, who were carrying black coloured plastic sack. Rear portion of the vehicle was found to be covered with tarpoline. Both the persons who were carrying the sack, were overpowered by the I.O. with the help of police officials. Thereafter, identification of the raiding party was given to them and the names and addresses of the aforesaid persons were inquired. On inquiry, one person disclosed his name as Kehar Singh (applicant) and other persons disclosed his name as Vir Singh. 10.4 Thereafter, the vehicle in question was searched. In the said vehicle, two black coloured plastic sacks were found. On opening, those sacks were found containing transparent polythene containing powder shaped brown coloured substance. From the sack, which was found inside the vehicle, 26-26 packets were found, whereas, from the other sack, which was found outside the vehicle, 25-25 packets were found. On smelling and on the basis of experience, the said packets were found to be 6 2025:HHC:15454 containing poppy husk (bhukki). On weighment, the said poppy husk was found to be 102.879 kg. 10.5 Thereafter, ruqua was sent for registration of the FIR. After registration of the FIR, accused persons were arrested. Samples of the contraband were sent to SFSL, Junga, from where, positive report has been received. 10.6 Thereafter, provisions of Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act were complied with by producing the case property, before the learned ACJM, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Inventory was prepared and the same was sent to SFSL, Junga. After receiving the positive report of from the SFSL, Junga, the Police has filed charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the learned Addl. Sessions, Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 10.7 Five witnesses are stated to have been examined and the case is stated to be fixed on 26.5.2025, for recording the statements of PWs 5 and 6. 10.8. Against applicant Kehar Singh, case FIR No. 83 of 2015, dated 10.5.2025, under Sections 382, 341, 323 and 34 IPC and case FIR No. 152 of 2022, dated 7 2025:HHC:15454 7.11.2022, under Sections 39 (1)(a) of the H.P. Excise Act, registered with Police Station, Baddi, are stated to have been registered, against the applicant. 11. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 12. The contraband, allegedly recovered in the present case, admittedly, falls within the ‘commercial quantity’. When, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS are applicable, in that eventuality, before releasing the applicant on bail, this Court has to satisfy the twin conditions as per Section 37(b) of the NDPS Act by holding that the accused (applicant) has not committed the offence and in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he will not commit any offence. 13. Without recording such satisfaction, bail application can not be allowed. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, wherein, it has been held that in 8 2025:HHC:15454 case of commercial quantity of the contraband, the accused shall generally be not released on bail, until or unless, the conditions, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are held to be existed in favour of the applicant. 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 xxx 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 9 2025:HHC:15454 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. (iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (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.” (self-emphasis supplied) 14. In this case, bail has been sought on the ground of undue delay in trial. Applicant has been arrested on 11.2.2023, in this case, and till date five witnesses have been examined and the case is now fixed for recording 10 2025:HHC:15454 the evidence of prosecution witnesses, on 26.5.2025. In such situation, this Court is of the view that considering the pace of the trial, delay in trial does not fall within the definition of ‘undue delay’. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for his release on bail. 16. Considering all these facts, the present bail application is dismissed. 17. 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 May 23, 2025 Kalpana