2025:HHC:29528 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 2118 of 2025 Decided on    : 30. 08.2025 Abhishek Sahota …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. Jeewan Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent  :  Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma,   Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Applicant­Abhishek   Sahota,   apprehending   his arrest,  in   case   FIR   No.130   of   2025,   dated   17.08.2025, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the   ‘NDPS   Act’),   with   Police   Station   Palampur,   District Kangra,   H.P.,   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:29528 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this   Court   has   been   sought  to   direct   the   Police/ Investigating   Officer   of  Police  Station   Palampur,  District Kangra, H.P., to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest. 3. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person   and   has   falsely   been   implicated,   in   the   present case, whereas, he has nothing to do with the offence, for which, he has been named, as accused. 4. The   applicant   has   further   pleaded   that   the police has registered the case only against Priya Devi, Parik and Chandandeep and the applicant has not even been named, in the FIR, aforementioned. 5. It is the further case of the applicant that the contraband, allegedly recovered, from the house of Priya Devi and the applicant has no concern whatsoever, with said Priya Devi. 6. The   applicant   has   given   the   history   of   the following cases, which have been registered against him :­ i) FIR   No.   138/2024,   dated   13.12.2024,   under Section 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered in   Police   Station   Palampur,   District   Kangra (H.P.) 3 2025:HHC:29528 ii) FIR   No.   132/2024,   dated   20.11.2024,   under Section 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra (H.P.) iii) FIR   No.   138/2024,   dated   12.12.2024,   under Section 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered in   Police   Station   Palampur,   District   Kangra (H.P.) iv) FIR   No.   128/2024,   dated   14.11.2024,   under Section 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. 7. 7. The applicant, on the basis of the above facts, has prayed that the police is adamant to arrest him, in the above noted case, as such, indulgence of this Court has been   sought   to   issue   a   direction   to   the   I.O./Police   to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest. 8. Apart from this, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued under Section 482 BNSS. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 10. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report, disclosing therein, that ASI Nand Lal, I.O., Police   Station   Palampur,   submitted   a   rukka,   disclosing therein that on 17.08.2025, at about 12.42 p.m., he, along 4 2025:HHC:29528 with other police officials, had left the Police Station, for patrolling, as well as, duty to detect the crime relating to excise. 10.1 At about 2.20 p.m., when the police party was present at a place known, as Chimbalhar, then, he received a secret information from reliable sources that Priya Devi wife of Raghuveer Singh   and Parik son of Tilak Raj, are doing   the   business   of   selling   Chitta/Heroin,   in   the residence of Priya Devi. 10.2. As   per   the   information,   in   case,   the   said residential   house   is   searched,   large  quantity   of   Chitta/ Heroin could be recovered. As per the information, in case of delay, the possibility of removal of the contraband is also there. 10.3. 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 through Whatsapp. 10.4. Thereafter,   the   I.O.   proceeded   towards   the industrial   area   and   called   Up­Pradhan   Sanjeev   Kumar, along with one more witness. When, at about 3.10 p.m., 5 2025:HHC:29528 the   I.O.,   along   with   other   police   officials,   reached   the industrial area ground, then, Up­Pradhan Sanjeev Kumar, along with another person met him. Thereafter, the said persons disclosed their names, as Sanjeev Kumar son of late Shri Brahama Nand and Sanjeev Kumar son of late Shri Arjun Kumar. They were associated as independent witnesses 10.5. As about 3.30 p.m., the police party, along with the   independent   witnesses,   reached   at   the   residential house of Priya Devi. Thereafter, the I.O. called Priya Devi, upon which, she came out. She was apprised about the secret information and in the presence of the witnesses, two other persons were found there. On inquiry, they have disclosed   their   names   as   Priya   Devi,   Parik   and Chandandeep. Thereafter, the house of Priya Devi was checked. On   checking,   14   small   pouches   were   found, which were found containing contraband. On weighment, Chitta weighing 11.33 grams were found. 10.6. Thereafter,   other   codal   formalities   were completed and the police registered the FIR in question 6 2025:HHC:29528 and the criminal machinery swung into motion. All the three accused persons were arrested. 11. During   investigation,   accused   Parik   and Chandandeep disclosed that they had gone to Priya Devi, in   order   to   purchase   Chitta/Heroin   on   17.08.2025. Thereafter, Priya Devi was also inquired, who has disclosed that Abhishek Sahota (applicant), is her relative. Abhishek, on   instagram   had   made   a   call   and   apprised   that   two persons namely Chandandeep and Parik are visiting her and requested her to hand over the ‘Saman’ to them. 12. When, Priya Devi came out from her house and reached at ground, then, the two persons disclosed that they have been sent by Abhishek Sahota (applicant) and they have to purchase chitta. They have also apprised that they have made a payment to Abhishek Sahota (applicant). As per the revelation made by accused Priya Devi, she had to deliver three grams Chita to them, upon which, she had requested them to come to her house. She was about to deliver the Chitta to them, meanwhile, the police reached there and nabbed them. 7 2025:HHC:29528 13. The   police   has   also   highlighted   the   previous criminal   history   of   the   applicant   and   it   has   been apprehended that the applicant is fully acquainted with the local conditions and with the help of his relatives, he is providing/selling Chitta/ Heroin to younger generation. 14. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. The NDPS Act is a special statute, enacted by the legislature, in its wisdom, to curb the menace of drug abuse with stringent punishment. 16. 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, has held that the provisions of NDPS Act have to be interpreted literally and not liberally. 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. 8 2025:HHC:29528 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 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 9 2025:HHC:29528 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.” (self­emphasis supplied) 17. Considering   the   ill   effect   of   the   psychotropic substances and drugs over the younger generation, any relief to the applicant, will give wrong signal to the society that after committing such a heinous crime, having impact on the younger generation, the applicant is moving freely in the society. 18. Any relief to the applicant would also encourage others to indulge in the similar activities, which is against the intent of the legislature, for which, the NDPS Act has been enacted. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for bail. Consequently, the application is dismissed. 10 2025:HHC:29528 20. 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 ) August 30, 2025 ( ps) Judge