1 2025:HHC:24261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP(M) No. :   1556 of 2025 Reserved on : 18 th   July, 2025 Decided on :  25 th   July, 2025 Yog Raj …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. Vinod Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with   Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Rohit   Sharma,   Deputy   Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Yog   Raj,   has   filed   the   present application, under Section  483  of the  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, in   a   case,   arising   out   of   FIR   No.14/2023,   dated   6th February, 2023, registered with Police Station, Patlikuhal, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:24261 District   Kullu,   H.P.,   under   Sections   20   and   25   of   the Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, and wrongly arrested by the police. 3. As per the case of the applicant, investigation in the present case is complete, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that there is huge difference in the quantity allegedly recovered and the quantity received in SFSL, as such, the entire case of the prosecution comes under the cloud of suspicion. 5. As   per   the   applicant,   there   is   no   legally admissible   evidence,   connecting   the   applicant   with   the alleged offence. 6. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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, during the pendency of the trial. 3 2025:HHC:24261 7. Earlier,   the   applicant   has   filed   similar applications, before this Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1738 of   2024   and   Cr.MP(M)   No.67   of   2025,  which  were dismissed   as   withdrawn   on   4.11.2024   and   10.01.2025, respectively. Thereafter, the applicant has filed Cr.MP(M) No.432 of 2025, which was also dismissed by this Court on 22.03.2025. 8. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the applicant, in the present case, has duly fulfilled the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 06.02.2023, HC Sandeep Kumar   No.23,   along   with   other   police   official,   was   on patrolling duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics. 9.1. At about 11.30 a.m., when, the police party was present  near  Patlikuhal bridge, then, the I.O., received a secret information that one Yog Raj, who is coming in white coloured  van,  bearing   registration  No.HP34B­1895,  from Sekri and will reach between 1.00­2.00 p.m. at Patlikuhal. 4 2025:HHC:24261 As per the information, in case, he is nabbed in between, large quantity of Charas can be recovered. 9.2. According to the I.O., in case, he obtains the search warrants, the said vehicle can not be nabbed and possibility of removal of the contraband is also there. 9.3. The information was found to be authentic and reliable, as such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same to his superior officer. 9.4. Thereafter,   the   police   had   made   efforts   to search the independent witnesses, but, due to heavy snow fall,  no   independent   witness   was   found. Thereafter,   at about 12.55 p.m., they had put the picketing at zero point Segali and from there, the I.O, had called the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and requested him to come to the spot, along with other person. 9.5. Due to heavy snow fall, no vehicle was found to be passing from the spot. However, at about 1.30 p.m., the I.O. noticed a white colour van, coming from Sekari side. The   I.O.   had   made   a   plan   to   stop   the   said   vehicle   by parking   another   vehicle   bearing   No.HP49­1607,   in   the 5 2025:HHC:24261 middle   of   the   road. Thereafter,   the   vehicle   was   got stopped, and the driver, at once, had tried to flee away, however,   with   the   help   of   other   police   officials,   he  was nabbed. 9.6. At about 1.40 p.m., Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Vijay   Prakash,   along   with   other   person   Om   Prakash reached there. The person, who was nabbed, disclosed his name as Yog Raj (applicant). 9.7. Thereafter,   the   car   was   searched   and   during search, a black coloured rucksack was found, which, on opening, was found containing a black coloured substance. On smelling, the contraband was found to be cannabis and on weighment, the same was found to be 2 kilograms 49 grams. 9.8. Thereafter,  ruqua was submitted to the Police Station for registration of FIR. 9.9. After   completing   other   codal   formalities,   the contraband, so recovered, was taken into possession and the accused (applicant) was arrested. 6 2025:HHC:24261 10. After   completion   of   investigation,   the   final report was filed in the competent Court of law, in which the learned Special Judge, Kullu has taken the cognizance. 11. As per the status report, out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 9 have been examined and the case is now fixed for recording the statements of two prosecution witnesses i.e. at Sl. No.15 and 16, on 01.11.2025. 12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. The  applicant, in the present case, has been arrested,   under   the   provisions   of   NDPS   Act. The legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted this statute to curb the   menace   of   drug   abuse   with   stringent   punishment. Certain conditions are there, in the NDPS Act, in the shape of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which are, in addition to the conditions,   as   contained   in   Section  483   of   the   BNSS. Before   releasing   a   person   on   bail,   those   conditions,   as enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are to be fulfilled, if the accused has been arrested for the offence, involving commercial quantity of contraband. 7 2025:HHC:24261 14. Once,   it   has   been   held   that   the   contraband allegedly   recovered   from   the   possession   of   the   accused (applicant) falls in the category of ‘commercial quantity’, as per   the   Notification   issued   by   the   Central   Government, then, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play. 15. The   contraband   allegedly   recovered   from   the applicant,   admittedly,   falls   within   the   definition   of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable, in this case. 16. In   a   recent   decision,   in   case,   titled   as Narcotics   Control   Bureau   versus   Mohit   Aggarwal, reported   in  AIR   2022   SC   3444,  the   Hon’ble   Supreme Court has reiterated the earlier view regarding compliance of the conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The relevant  paras 10 to 15 of the judgment  are reproduced, as under: “10. The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act read as follows: “[37. Offences   to   be   cognizable   and   non­ bailable.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained   in   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)­ 8 2025:HHC:24261 (a)   every   offence   punishable   under   this   Act shall be cognizable; (b)   no   person   accused   of   an   offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section   24   or   section   27A   and   also   for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be   released   on   bail   or   on   his   own   bond unless­ (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii)   where   the   Public   Prosecutor   opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. 11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non­ obstante clause inserted in sub­section (1) and the conditions imposed in subsection (2) of Section 37 that  there  are  certain   restrictions   placed  on  the power of the Court when granting bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Not only are the limitations imposed under   Section   439   of   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 37   are   also   to   be   factored   in. The   conditions imposed in sub­section (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the   Public   Prosecutor   ought   to   be   given   an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused   person   for   release   and   (ii)   if   such   an application   is   opposed,   then   the   Court   must   be satisfied that there are reasonable   grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be 9 2025:HHC:24261 satisfied   that   the   accused   person   is   unlikely   to commit any offence while on bail. 12. The   expression   “reasonable   grounds”   has come up for discussion in several rulings of this Court. In “Collector of Customs, New Delhi   v. Ahmadalieva   Nodira”,   (2004)   3   SCC   549,   a decision rendered by a Three Judges Bench of this Court, it has been held thus: “7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to   the   Public   Prosecutor,   the   other   twin conditions which really have relevance so far as   the   present   accused   respondent   is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the court that   there   are   reasonable   grounds   for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged  offence and that he is not likely to commit   any   offence   while   on   bail. The conditions are  cumulative and not alternative. The   satisfaction   contemplated   regarding   the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable   grounds. The   expression “reasonable   grounds”   means   something more   than   prima   facie   grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that   the accused is not   guilty   of   the   alleged   offence. The reasonable   belief   contemplated   in   the provision requires existence of such facts and   circumstances   as   are   sufficient   in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused   is   not   guilty   of   the   alleged offence.” [emphasis added] 13. The expression “reasonable ground” came up for discussion in “State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh and others” (2020) 12 SCC 122 and this Court has observed as below: “20. The   expression   “reasonable   grounds” means   something   more   than   prima   facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable 10 2025:HHC:24261 causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief   contemplated   in   the   provision requires   existence   of   such   facts   and circumstances   as     are   sufficient   in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused   is   not   guilty   of   the   alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems   to   have   completely   overlooked   the underlying   object   of   Section   37   that   in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.”  [emphasis added] 14. To   sum   up,   the   expression   “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of Sub­Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused   person   is   not   guilty   of   the   alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that   the   accused   person   would   not   have committed such an offence. Dove­tailed with the   aforesaid   satisfaction   is   an   additional consideration   that   the   accused   person   is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. 15. We   may   clarify   that   at   the   stage   of examining   an   application   for   bail   in   the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required  to record  a finding that  the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The   entire   exercise   that   the   Court   is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty   of   the   offences   that   he   has   been 11 2025:HHC:24261 charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.” 17. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   a   case, Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control   Bureau   versus   Kashif’,  Neutral   Citation   No. 2024   INSC   1045,   has   again   reiterated   the   law,   as enumerated by it, in Mohit Aggarwal’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature. 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 12 2025:HHC:24261 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. (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) Sub­section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure   as   contemplated   in   sub­section   (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 13 2025:HHC:24261 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.” (self­emphasis supplied) 18. In view of the above, there is nothing on the record to give an occasion for this Court to hold that the twin conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are in favour of the applicant, in the present case. 19. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant qua the fact that there is huge difference between   the   quantity   of   the   contraband,   which   has allegedly been recovered and weighed by the I.O., as well as,   the   quantity   of   the   contraband   received   in   the Laboratory, is concerned, the said factual aspect can only be considered  by the  learned trial  Court  and  the same cannot   be   considered   by   this   Court,   that   too,   while deciding the question of bail, in a commercial quantity. Even if the said argument is considered, this Court is of the view that the twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, do not exist in favour of the applicant. 14 2025:HHC:24261 20. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case, on the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant has not committed the offence and in case, he is ordered to be released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. As such,   in   the   absence   of   the   satisfaction   of   the   twin conditions, the applicant is not held entitled for any relief, under Section  483 of the BNSS. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 21. 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 bail application. ( Virender Singh ) July 25, 2025 ( ps ) Judge