1 2025:HHC:15457 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1163 of 2025 Reserved on : 20.05.2025 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 Shafudeen …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. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Shafudeen has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him, on interim bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.06 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR in question), registered under Section 22- 61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:15457 ) 2. According to the applicant, he has been apprehended by the police on 08.01.2024 for allegedly possessing 1920 capsules of Parvion Spas Plus (tramadol). Thereafter, the police has registered the FIR in question and the applicant has been arrested. 3. According to the applicant, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed, against the applicant, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. Charges have been framed and only four witnesses are yet to be examined, for which, the case is stated to be listed on 11.06.2025. 4. The relief of interim bail has been sought on the ground that father of the applicant is an old age person and unable to walk and is facing old age-related ailments. 5. On the basis of the above facts, applicant has prayed that interim bail may be granted him, so that he could meet his ailing father. 6. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 08.01.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the applicant was nabbed by the police for allegedly possessing 1920 capsules of Parvion Spas Plus (tramadol) Hydrocloride Capsules. 3 2025:HHC:15457 ) 6.1 Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, police has filed the charge sheet, upon which, the competent Court of law has taken the cognizance. 6.2. It is the case of the State that only four prosecution witnesses are to be examined, for which, the case is now stated to be listed on 11.06.2025 for PWs. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. Admittedly, the contraband, so recovered, in the present case, falls within the definition of commercial quantity and before releasing the applicant, on bail, it is incumbent upon this Court to give specific findings, which should be more than prima-facie findings, with regard to the fact that the applicant has not committed the offence and while on bail, he will not commit any offence. Without recording the satisfaction with regard to the above twin conditions, the applicant who has been arrested in a case, under NDPS Act, involving ‘commercial quantity’, cannot be ordered to be released on bail, as has been held by 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 4 2025:HHC:15457 ) been held that in 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: 5 2025:HHC:15457 ) (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) 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 6 2025:HHC:15457 ) 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 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.” {Self emphasis supplied} 9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, according to which, the father of the applicant, aged about 92 years, is suffering from old-age ailments, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case, where the police authorities can be directed to take the applicant to his native place in proper custody, on 24.05.2025, after informing the Police Station, in whose jurisdiction the native place of the applicant, falls. 10. The applicant is permitted to meet his father in the police custody on 24.05.2025, from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and 7 2025:HHC:15457 ) thereafter, he is ordered to be brought back and remanded to the judicial custody. 11. Consequently, the present bail application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 12. 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 application. 13. Copy of this order be communicated to the Jail authorities at Model Central Jail, Nahan. (Virender Singh) Judge May 23, 2025 (subhash) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.05.23 14:24:42 IST