2025:HHC:19457 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1440 of 2025 Decided on : 23.06.2025 Uttam Ram …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. Prashant Pandit and Mr. Harmohan Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge Apprehending his arrest, in case, arising out of FIR No.69/2025 dated 23.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., applicant-Uttam Ram has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19457 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case and has nothing to do with the recovery of the alleged contraband. 4. It has been averred in the application that the recovery, as per the case of the police, has been made from one Himmat Singh, S/o Joginder Singh, R/o VPO Siyun, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. 4.1. All these facts have been pleaded to show that no recovery has been effected from the applicant and asserting the fact that he is from respectable family, having deep roots in the society, he has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 5. Apart from this, the applicant has also asserted the fact that he is having two small children and is the sole bread-earner of his family. 3 2025:HHC:19457 6. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case. 7. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23.05.2025, HC Vishal No.63, SIU Mandi, H.P., along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime. When, they reached near Forest Rest House, Basadhar, then, a secret information was received, through WhatsApp, at 04:45 pm, mentioning therein, that in a vehicle, bearing No.HP-76-6108, make Alto, colour silver, there were two persons and the said vehicle was owned by Uttam Ram (applicant). As per the information, said Uttam Ram, along with his accomplice Himmat Ram, was in the business of selling charas and if, the raid is conducted, then, large quantity of charas could be recovered. 7.1. It is the case of the police that as per the said information, in case of delay, both the said persons could flee away, along with the vehicle. As such, IO has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and 4 2025:HHC:19457 submitted the report to the Additional Superintendent of Police through Ct. Kamal Kishore. 7.2. It is the further case of the police that the place, where the vehicle, along with both the said persons, was seen, was a secluded place and no independent witness was there. Thereafter, IO started towards Basadhar side. When, the police party, under the leadership of IO, was on link road to Village Lajnu GP Mambli, then, a silver coloured car was seen on the hill side of the road. When, the police party reached near the said car, the registration number of the said vehicle was found to be HP-76-6108 and two persons were seen standing near it. Subsequently, Ct. Shahid Ali No.921 went near the car and asked the driver to stop the same. When, the police party came out from the vehicle, both the said persons got perplexed and one person, out of the two, who was older than the other and was about 40 years, called out to the other accomplice to run away, by saying that ‘the narco people have come’. 7.3. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, on hearing the scream, IO, along with the team, tried to nab the said person, but, he jumped down from the retaining wall. Another person was nabbed. The person, 5 2025:HHC:19457 who had fled away from the spot, was chased by Ct. Shahid Ali and Ct. Kamal Kishore, but, as it was steep and dangerous, they could not go much further. The said person, who ran away, was seen for about 500 mts. downwards, but, after that, he disappeared. The person, who was nabbed, was overpowered by IO and Ct. Shahid Ali was sent to bring an independent witness, who went to the house, located at a distance of about 50 mts. and came back after about 10 minutes and told that there is an old woman in the house, who is about 50 years of age and is not capable of becoming an independent witness. As such, Pradhan Suraj Kumar of Gram Panchayat Katindi and Up- Pradhan Raman Kumar were requested to come to the spot. 7.4. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, IO waited for both the aforesaid persons. During that period, he has enquired about the name of the person, who was nabbed and on enquiry, he disclosed his name as Himmat Ram and he also disclosed the name of the other person, who had fled away from the spot, as Uttam Ram (applicant). At about 06:00 pm, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan Raman of Gram Panchayat Katindi came there, who were 6 2025:HHC:19457 apprised about the factual position and were associated in the team as independent witnesses. Subsequently, in the presence of the above two witnesses, vehicle, bearing registration No.HP-76-6108, was searched. The said vehicle was, as per the Registration Certificate, was found to be in the name of Barkhu Ram, S/o Acchru Ram, who was found to be the father of applicant-Uttam Ram, the person, who as per the police case, had fled away from the spot. 7.5. It is the further case of the police that during the search, a transparent polythene carry bag was found, which, on opening, was found to be containing stick- shaped substance and on the basis of experience and smelling, it was found to be charas. On weighment, the same was found to be 1.502 kg. Other codal formalities were completed. 7.6. After registration of the FIR, accused Himmat Ram was arrested. 7.7. During the police remand, accused Himmat Ram has also disclosed about the indulgence of Uttam Ram (applicant) in the crime in question. 7 2025:HHC:19457 8. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 9. Admittedly, the contraband, which has allegedly been recovered, in the present case, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. Once, this fact has been stated by the police in the status report, then, admittedly, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable in the present case. 10. When, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable, in that eventuality, before releasing the applicant, on bail, it is incumbent upon this Court to give findings, with regard to fulfilment 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. 11. The view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Neutral Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, wherein, it has been held that in case of commercial quantity of the contraband, the accused shall generally be 8 2025:HHC:19457 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 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. 9 2025:HHC:19457 (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 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) 12. At this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant has not committed the offence, nor it can be said that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he will not commit any offence. 10 2025:HHC:19457 13. In the absence of the twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, existing in favour of the applicant, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, who has sought the relief, under Section 482 of BNSS. 14. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the present bail application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly 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 23, 2025 ( Gaurav Thakur )