1 2025:HHC:29198 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2051 of 2025 Reserved on : 25.8.2025 Decided on : 29.8.2025 Bimla Devi …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Suneet Verma and Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms.Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge The applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) in case FIR No. 58 of 2025, dated 5.5.2025, registered under Section 18 of the Narcotics Psychotropic & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 2 2025:HHC:29198 ‘the NDPS”), with Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in the above-mentioned case, as, she is apprehending her arrest, in the said case. 3. According to the applicant, she is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case. 4. It is the case of the applicant that as per Jamabandi, Khasra No. 1963 is jointly owned by 20 co- sharers, whose names have duly been reflected in the revenue record, and not in exclusive possession of the applicant. 5. Apart from this, Mr. Suneet Verma and Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocates have given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, she is ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O., under Section 482 of the BNSS. 3 2025:HHC:29198 6. On the basis of above facts, applicant has sought the relief, as claimed in the present bail application. 7. When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 5.5.2025, H.C. Sanjay Kumar No. 73, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime, relating to illegal cultivation of opium. They were conducting the patrolling towards Dharmehad-Bulang- Sudhar side and at about 12:30 p.m., when the Police Party reached near Bulang village, the I.O. noticed cultivation of opium, in the middle of the field of wheat. 7.1 As per the further stand of the Police, the Revenue Officer was telephonically requested to come present on the spot, but she showed her inability to be there, as she, alongwith her assistant, was busy in some official work and according to her, it can take some time for them to reach at the spot. Thereafter, the Local Panchayat Pradhan Jai Singh was also telephonically requested to come present at the spot, however, he also 4 2025:HHC:29198 showed his inability to reach at the spot, being out of station. Thereafter, H.H.G.Gulab Singh was directed to bring independent witnesses from the village, but, according to said H.H.G. the villagers were not found available in village, as they were busy, in connection with their domestic work. 7.2 At about 3:00 p.m., the Revenue Officer, alongwith her Assistant Lekh Raj, reached at the spot. She was requested to check the record of relevant Khasra number, who, after perusing the same, submitted the report, according to which, opium was found to be cultivated on Khasra No. 1963, Muhal Bulang No. 469, which is in the joint possession of applicant and others. 7.3 Thereafter, Sita Devi, Lekh Ram and Gulab Singh were associated in the investigation, as witnesses. The I.O. counted the opium plants and the same were found to be 4,567/-. Thereafter, SDPO, Padhar was apprised about the illegal cultivation of the opium, upon which, the I.O. was directed to separate some plants, as 5 2025:HHC:29198 sample and direction was given to I.O. to destroy the remaining crop. It was also apprised that destruction orders would be issued separately, upon which, H.C. Sanjay Kumar prepared a report, under Section 48 of the NDPS Act, and submitted the same to SDPO, Padhar. Thereafter, he has uprooted 10 plants, which were put in a plastic sack and sealed with one seal impression ‘PDR AC’. Other codal formalities were completed and remaining 4557 plants were also destroyed. 7.4 Thereafter, ruqua was prepared and FIR was registered. On 10.6.2025, the area, where the cultivation of opium was found, was demarcated. As per the demarcation, the land has been found to be recorded in the name of Suresh Kumar, Neelmani, Duni Chand and Bimla Devi (applicant) and other co-sharers. 7.5 On 7.8.2025, the co-sharers in Khasra No. 1963, namely Dagan Devi, Ramkali, Nirmala Devi, Roop Lal, Suresh Kumar, Duni Chand, Neelmani, Anty Rai, Buleshwari, Sanjeev Kumar, Sunil Kumar, on being 6 2025:HHC:29198 summoned, reached at the Police Post. They submitted their affidavits, with regard to Khasra No. 1963. They were inquired and their statements were recorded. As per their affidavits and statements, the field bearing Khasra No. 1963/469, upon which, the cultivation of opium plants was found on 5.5.2025, had fallen to the share of Bimla Devi (applicant), as per family partition. She is stated to be in the possession of said field. 7.6 In the status report, filed on 24.8.2025, the similar stand, as taken in the earlier status report, has been reiterated. 7.7 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. The applicant has approached this Court by way of present application, which has been filed, under Section 482 of BNSS. In this factual background, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact as to whether the applicant is able to make out a case for issuing any direction, under Section 482 of BNSS? 7 2025:HHC:29198 9. According to the stand of the Police, the other co-sharers have submitted their affidavits, mentioning therein that in the family partition, the land upon which illegal cultivation of opium was found, had fallen to the share of Bimla Devi (applicant). 10. At this stage, from the stand, as taken by the co-sharers, the said land is stated to be in the cultivating possession of the applicant and taking the judicial note of the fact that there is no wild growth of the opium plants, until and unless, the same are sown and also keeping in view the number of plants, i.e. 4567 plants, this Court is of the view that in case, any direction is issued to the I.O./ Police, under Section 482 of BNSS, it would give wrong signal to the society, that after committing such a heinous crime, the applicant is moving freely in the society. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant, in this case, has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahil Firoz Shah versus State of Maharashstra, Cr. Appeal No(s). 4905 of 2024. The relief 8 2025:HHC:29198 of bail has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the said case that there was no allegation of commission of offence, under the provisions of NDPS Act, against the applicant, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereas, in this case, specific allegations have been levelled that the cultivation of opium plants, was found in the land, which was in the exclusive possession of the applicant. 12. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seesh Singh and Anr. versus State of Punjab, in Cr. Appeal No. 822 of 2020, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, in this case, is concerned, with due respect to the law, laid down in the said case, the involvement of the applicant was found in the disclosure statement, made by one Satnam Singh, as the person, from whom, the alleged contraband was purchased, whereas, in this case, co- sharers have sworn-in their affidavits, mentioning therein, that in the family settlement, the land upon 9 2025:HHC:29198 which, the cultivation of opium was found, had fallen to the share of the applicant. 13. 13. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, according to which, provisions of special statute is to be interpreted literally, not liberally, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for her release on bail. 14. Considering all these facts, the present bail application is 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 August 29, 2025 Kalpana 10 2025:HHC:29198