2025:HHC:29420 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 1656 of 2025 Reserved On : 08.08.2025 Decided on: 30.08.2025 Sahil Kumar …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant      :  Mr. Yashveer   Singh   Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma   and   Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (  oral ) Applicant   Sahil   Kumar   has   filed   the   present application,   under   Section   483   of   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case   FIR   No.   133   of   2024,   dated   10.11.2024,   registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and 2 2025:HHC:29420 Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as the ND&PS Act), with Police Station, Damtal. 2. The  applicant  has  pleaded  the  fact  that  he is innocent   person   and   has   falsely   been   implicated   in   the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever with the offence, for which, he has been arrested, by the police. 3. According   to   the   applicant,   story   of   the prosecution is highly improbable and rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are not applicable in this case. 4. As per the case of the applicant, the case of the prosecution   is   based   on   totally   absurd,   baseless   and imaginary story and by no stretch of imigination, a case is made out against him. 5. It   is   his   further   case   that   the   story   of   the prosecution is concocted one as no specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. 6. No recovery is stated to have effected from the conscious possession of the applicant, nor the investigating agency   could   find   any   incriminating   article   from   his 3 2025:HHC:29420 motorcycle. 7. According to the applicant, investigation of the case   is   complete   and   challan   has   been   filed. As   such, according to the applicant, his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the police, in this case. 8. The applicant has earlier moved the application bearing Cr. MP(M) No. 438 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on 19.03.2025. 9. 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 the trial. 10. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 11. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report, disclosing therein, that on 10.11.2024, ASI Satinder   Singh,   I.O.,   CIA   Staff,   Nurpur   has   submitted   a ruqua to Police Station, Damtal, disclosing therein that he alongwith other police officials was on patrolling duty, as well   as,   duty   to   detect   the   crime   relating   to   excise   and 4 2025:HHC:29420 narcotics. When, the police party was conducting patrolling in   Nurpur,   Kandwal,   Laudhwan,   Bhadroya,   Damtal   and Milwan,   and   was   present   near   Ranchi   Mod,   then,   he received   a   secret   information   at   about   6:00   p.m.   that   a vehicle No. JK­08L­1571 (White coloured Alto) was coming from Milwan side towards Pathankot, in which, Karanpreet Singh,   S/o   Ajeet   Singh   and   Vishal   Kumar,   S/o   Kamall Kishore were the occupants. As per the information, the aforesaid persons were indulged in the business of selling the charas/cannabis. 11.1 As per the informer, both the persons, namely, Karanpreet Singh and Vishal are very clever and they have sent Sahil Kumar (applicant), S/o Mehar Chand to conduct recce on his motorcycle, bearing No. JK­08N5726. The said information   was   found   to   be   authentic   and   reliable   and according to the I.O., in case of delay, the said contraband could have been removed, as such, he has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the ruqua to SDPO, Indora, through Const.Arun. 11.2 Thereafter,   the   picketing   was   put   near   grain 5 2025:HHC:29420 market towards Gilwan with the help of other police officials. At that time, Incharge HHC Santosh Raj was apprised about the aforesaid fact and associated in the raiding party. In the meanwhile, I.O. noticed two persons coming from Damtal chowk side, who, on inquiry, disclosed their name as Mohan Singh,   S/o   Rasal   Singh   and   Dharamvir,   S/o   late   Sh. Subhash   Chand. Both   of   them   were   apprised   about   the information and requested to associate the police party as independent witnesses. On the request of the I.O., they were ready to be independent witnesses. The I.O. started waiting for the aforesaid motor­cycle. At about 6:50 p.m., aforesaid motorcycle (blue and black coloured pulser) reached there. The I.O. signaled to stop the vehicle. After the motor­cycle, aforesaid   Alto   car   was   also   coming,   On   seeing   the motorcycle   stopped   by   the   Police,   driver   of   the   car   had stopped the car at a distance of about 10 meters. HC Ranjit Singh was directed to be present near the motorcycle and rest   of   the   police   officials   had   overpowered   the   persons, traveling in the Alto car. 11.3 On inquiry, driver of the Alto car disclosed his 6 2025:HHC:29420 name as Karanpreet Singh, whereas, the person sitting by his side disclosed his name as Vishal. The driver of the motor­cycle disclosed his name as Sahil Kumar (applicant). 11.4 All the three persons were apprised about the secret   information. In   the   presence   of   the   independent witnesses, the vehicle was searched. In the vehicle, a black coloured rucksack was found, which, on opening was found to   be   containing   6   packets,   having   stick   shaped   black coloured substance, which, on smelling was founded to be charas. The said fact was also confirmed by the aforesaid three   persons,   who   were   nabbed   by   the   Police. On weighment, the said Charas was found to be 3.20 kg. Other codal formalities were completed and all the three accused persons were arrested. 11.5 After   receiving   positive   report   from   the   SFSL, Junga, the Police prepared the charge­sheet. 11.6 In the status report, no other criminal history of the applicant has been pleaded. 11.7 On   the   basis   of   above   facts,   it   has   been apprehended in the status report that in case, the applicant 7 2025:HHC:29420 is released on bail, he may not be available for trial and he may   again   indulge   in   the   same   activities   and   may   also coerce the witnesses. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 12. 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. 13. 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 fulfillment of twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37(b) of the NDPS Act. These conditions are (i) that the applicant is not guilty of such offences, and (ii) that while on bail, he will not commit any offence. 14. In   a   recent   decision,   in   case,   titled   as Narcotics   Control Bureau  versus   Mohit  Aggarwal, 8 2025:HHC:29420 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)­ (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 9 2025:HHC:29420 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 10 2025:HHC:29420 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 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 11 2025:HHC:29420 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. 12 2025:HHC:29420 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 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] 13 2025:HHC:29420 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 charged 14 2025:HHC:29420 with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.” 15. Moreover,   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’,  Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, wherein, it has 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 15 2025:HHC:29420 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 16 2025:HHC:29420 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) Sub­section (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.” (self­emphasis supplied) 16. In the absence of the twin conditions, as enu­ merated, under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned counsel, appearing 17 2025:HHC:29420 for the applicant, who has sought the release of the appli­ cant, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 17. In addition to this, a futile attempt has also been made by learned Counsel for the applicant qua the fact that grounds of arrest were not served upon the applicant. The applicant has annexed the copy of arrest memo, which was provided to the applicant at the time of his arrest. As per the stand taken by the police, applicant was following the vehicle No. JK08L­1571, on his bike No. JK08N­5726, make Pulsar. The applicant was intercepted on the basis of the secret information and it is not a case of the prosecution that he was found there at the spot by chance. Accused Karanpreet Singh and Sahil Kumar are from the same area and were intercepted at 6:20 pm, at Damtal Chowk. When the memos, which were prepared at the spot, were signed by all the three accused, then, the contents of the arrest memo are   to   be   read   along   with   those   documents,   which   were prepared by the I.O. at the spot. Cumulative reading of those documents, negates the contention of learned Counsel for applicant qua non service of grounds of arrest. 18 2025:HHC:29420 18. Another ground, upon which the relief cannot be granted to the applicant is that it has been apprehended that he may coerce the witnesses. The said apprehension cannot be said to be unfounded, at this stage. 19. Considering   the   observations   and   discussions, made above, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not   entitled   to   relief   of   bail,   at   this   stage. As   such,   the present application is dismissed. 20. 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 30th August, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)