1 2025:HHC:27302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP(M) No. : 1615 of 2025 Reserved on : 04.08.2025 Decided on : 13.08.2025 Roshan Lal …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. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge. By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), applicant-Roshan Lal, has sought his release on bail, during the pendency of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27302 the trial, in a case, arising out of FIR No. 200 of 2023, dated 23rd June, 2023, registered with Police Station Sadar, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. According to the applicant, he is completely innocent and has falsely been implicated, in this case, and arrested by the police, at the instance of some interested persons, for allegedly possessing contraband (charas), weighing 3.15 kg, and, he has nothing to do with the commission of the alleged offence. 3. As per the case of the applicant, he belongs to a respectable family and is deeply rooted in the society. According to the applicant, he is permanent resident of District Kullu, as such, there is no likelihood of his absconding or jumping over the bail, if granted to him. 4. The investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed. As per the applicant, the charge sheet has been filed, the competent Court of law has taken the cognizance and charges have been framed, however, out of 3 2025:HHC:27302 22 prosecution witnesses, till date, only six witnesses have been examined and the case was fixed for 1st August, 2025. 5. The applicant has sought his release, mainly, on the ground of inordinate delay in trial. 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. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 8. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 23rd June, 2023, Inspector Daya Ram, Incharge, SIU, Kullu, alongwith other police official, was on patrolling duty and when, they were present at a bridge on Jari-Malana road, then, at about 1.30 p.m., from Malana side, a white coloured car, being driven by its driver, came there. The registration of the said vehicle was found to be HP 01K 6991. Only, the driver was there in the car. 4 2025:HHC:27302 8.1. When, the car was stopped, the driver questioned the act of the police, as, they were in civil dress, upon which, the IO has shown his identity card. Upon this, the said person got perplexed. On inquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Roshan Lal, s/o Shyam Lal (applicant). When, the car was checked, contraband, i.e. charas, weighing 3 kg 15 gram was recovered. 8.2. On the basis of the ruqua, submitted by the IO, FIR was registered and the accused (applicant) was arrested. After receiving the positive report from SFSL Junga, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant, before the competent Court of law and the case was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 1st August, 2025. 9. 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. 5 2025:HHC:27302 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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: 6 2025:HHC:27302 “37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (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 sub-section (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 sub-section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in sub-section (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 7 2025:HHC:27302 satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be 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 8 2025:HHC:27302 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 Sub-Section (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. Dove-tailed 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 charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.” 9 2025:HHC:27302 13. 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 Narcotics Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444. 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 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 10 2025:HHC:27302 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 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) 11 2025:HHC:27302 14. 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. 15. So far as the delay in trial is concerned, the accused (applicant), in this case, was arrested on 23rd June, 2023 and as per the stand of the applicant, as well as, the police, that out of 22 prosecution witnesses, six have been examined. Considering the pace of the trial, this Court is satisfied that there is no undue delay in trial, warranting the release of the applicant, on bail. 16. 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 is not guilty of such 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. 12 2025:HHC:27302 17. 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 ) Judge August 13, 2025 ( rajni )