1 2025:HHC:33009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 2170 of 2025 Reserved on  :    17.09.2025 Decided on    :    23.09.2025 Les Ram …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   Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent:  Mr. Varun Chandel & Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,   Additional   Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Ranjna   Patial,   Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Les   Ram   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,   arising   out   of  FIR   No.   212   of   2023,   dated 06.11.2023,   registered   under  Section   20   of   the Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS’ Act), with  Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:33009 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, at the instance of the police. According to him,  no useful purpose   would   be   served   by   keeping   him   in   judicial custody. 3. As per the applicant, has further pleaded that the investigation,  in the present case, is complete and despite the fact that he is in judicial custody, for the last two years, the trial against him could not be concluded. 4. The   applicant   has   earlier   tried   his   luck   by moving similar application, bearing Cr.MP (M) No.1285 of 2025,   before   this   Court,   which   was   dismissed   on 25.06.2025. 5. 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, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present application, as prayed for. 7. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 06.11.2023, ASI 3 2025:HHC:33009 Mukesh Kumar, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to excise   and   narcotics   and   they   proceeded   towards   the place known as Hathithan­Seund. 7.1. On 06.11.2023 at about 6:45 PM, when, IO, along with the other police officials, was present at a place known as Seund on Manikaran road and was checking the vehicles passing from there, then, IO noticed a person, having a Pithu bag (rucksack)   coming on his foot, from Charod Nalla side. He on seeing the police party, got perplexed   and   tried   to   turn   back   and   he   threw   the rucksack on the right side of the road and start moving in fast paces towards Charod Nalla side, upon which, ASI Mukesh Kumar, nabbed him at a distance of about 10 to 15 paces. 7.2. It is the case of the police that thereafter, the matter was enquired from the said person, as to why, he had thrown the bag, upon which, he got nervous. In the meanwhile,   vehicle   No.HP34F­3355   being   driven   by   its driver reached there from Manikaran side, to whom, ASI Mukesh   Kumar   gave   signal   to   stop   the   vehicle. Consequently, the driver stopped the vehicle. 4 2025:HHC:33009 7.3. On inquiry, the said driver disclosed his name as   Tikam   Ram. IO   apprised   him   about   the   factual position   and   requested   him   to   be   the   independent witness,   upon   which,   he   has   given   his   consent. Thereafter, the name and address of the person, who was nabbed, were ascertained. 7.4. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   on enquiry, the person, who was nabbed, disclosed his name as Les Ram (applicant). When, the bag, thrown by him, was   checked,   the   same   was   found   containing   black coloured ball shaped, wrapped in plastic substance. On weighment, it was found to be 1 kg. 654 grams charas, which was taken into possession. 7.5. After   completion   of   other   codal   formalities, afore­stated   FIR   was   registered   and   the   applicant   was arrested. 7.6. Thereafter,   the   proceedings,   under   Section 52(A)   of   NDPS   Act,   were   got   conducted   and   the contraband was sent to SFSL Junga. After receiving the positive report, police has filed the charge­sheet before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, on 19.12.2023. 5 2025:HHC:33009 7.7. Out of the total 12 witnesses, 6 witness have already been examined and the case is now stated to be listed on 13/14.11.2025 for recording the statements of PWs mentioned at serial No.1, 2 and 10 of the witness list. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 9. In the present case, the contraband, allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, as per the status  report,  falls within  the definition  of ‘commercial quantity’. 10. Once, the contraband, so recovered, from the alleged   possession   of   the   applicant,   falls   within   the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, then, before releasing the applicant on bail, in such a heinous offence, it  is mandatory   for   this   Court   to   satisfy   itself   about   the existence of twin conditions and 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 has not   committed   the   offence,   for   which,   he   has   been arrested, and (ii) that while on bail, he will not commit any   offence. The   existence   of   the   twin   conditions,   in 6 2025:HHC:33009 favour of the applicant, is a sine qua non for releasing a person, involved in commercial quantity of contraband. 11. From the stand, as taken by the applicant, as well as, the stand as taken by the prosecution, it is not possible   for   this   Court,   at   this   stage,   to   arrive   at   a conclusion to conclude that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and while on bail, he will not commit any offence. Hence, conditions as enumerated, under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, do not exist in favour of the applicant. 12. So far as the delay in the trial is concerned, as per the stand taken by the police that out of total 12 prosecution   witnesses,   6   prosecution   witnesses   have already   been   examined   and   the   case   is   now   listed   on 13/14.11.2025   for   recording   the   statements   of  PWs   at Serial No.1, 2 and 10. 13. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not able to make out a case for his release on bail. Consequently, the present application is dismissed. 14. In the normal circumstances, this Court would not direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial, as, 7 2025:HHC:33009 this Court cannot interfere in the day­to­day working of the   learned   trial   Court,   however,   keeping   in   view   the period of detention, it is a fit case where the learned trial Court can be requested to expedite the hearing. Ordered accordingly. 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 application. (Virender Singh) Judge September 23, 2025 (ps)