2025:HHC:33008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP (M) No. : 2204 of 2025 Reserved on   :    15.09.2025 Decided on     :    23.09.2025 Harshit Sharma …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. Yashveer   Singh   Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick,   Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Harshit Sharma, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha   Sanhita,   2023   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No.46 of 2024, dated 04.04.2024, registered, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the   Narcotic   Drugs   &   Psychotropic   Substances   Act 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33008 (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘NDPS   Act’),   with  Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, the FIR is outcome of a concocted story, by the prosecution, which is highly improbable and is highly suspicious, having no truth in it. According to the applicant, the grounds of detention were not communicated to him. 3. It is the further case of the applicant that he has no role in the commission of the alleged crime, as he neither   was   instrumental   behind   the   arrangement   and transportation   of   contraband,   nor   had   ever   any communication pertaining to sale and purchase. 4. As   per   the   applicant,   he   is   a   taxi   driver,   by profession. Neither he had knowledge about the luggage of co­accused nor he could ask from the passenger, as to what was he carrying with him. 5. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed. According to the applicant, the trial, in the present case, has been unduly delayed, for the last one year and five months. 3 2025:HHC:33008 6. All these facts have been highlighted to show that   the   custodial   interrogation   of   the   applicant   is   no longer required by the Police, in this case. 7. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving similar application, before learned Special Judge­II, Kangra at Dharamshala, however, his application was dismissed, vide order, dated 27th  November, 2024. Thereafter, the applicant has moved similar application, bearing Cr.MP (M) No.386 of 2025, which was also dismissed on 13.03.2025. 8. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings on behalf of the applicant, for which,  the   applicant  is  ready  to  abide  by,  in  case,  the applicant   is   ordered   to   be   released   on   bail,   during   the course of the trial. 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 on 03.04.2024, at about 10.15 p.m., HC Sudesh Kumar No.79, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty to detect the 4 2025:HHC:33008 crime   relating   to   excise   and   Narcotic   drugs   and   was present at a place known as Upper Daad, at Chamunda Palampur road. In the meanwhile, they noticed a white coloured   Alto   Car   bearing   registration   No.HP01D­8247, being driven by its driver, coming from Chamunda side. 10.1. The   driver   of   the   said   car,   on   noticing   the vehicle of the police, at once, turned his vehicle on the link road. Since, the link road was not so wide, as such, he could drive the same only upto 20 meters. 10.2. The activities of the driver raised suspicion in the mind of the I.O., that he might be having stolen articles in   his   vehicle,   upon   which,   the   I.O.   and   other   police officials   reached   at   the   place,   where,   the   vehicle   was stopped by its driver. 10.3. Since, the I.O., intended to search the vehicle, on the suspicion that some stolen articles might be there, as   such,   he   has   associated   two   independent   witnesses passing through there; namely Kalyan Chand and Sunny Kumar, after apprising them about the factual position. 10.4. Thereafter, the person, who was on the wheel, was   inquired,   who   on   inquiry   disclosed   his   name   as 5 2025:HHC:33008 Harshit Sharma (applicant) and the person sitting on the front seat disclosed his name as Dimpi Dadhwal. Both the persons were directed to remain sitted in the vehicle with a direction to switch on the cabin light. 10.5. When, the light was switched on, then the I.O. noticed a small bag, lying near the feet of Dimpi Dadhwal, which, on opening, was found to be containing Charas and on weighment, it was found to be 1 kilogram 30 grams. 10.6. Consequently, the said contraband was taken into possession and rukka was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. Accused were arrested. 11. After   completion   of   the   codal   formalities,   the contraband,  so  recovered,  was   sent  to   SFSL  Junga,  for analysis. 12. During investigation, accused Dimpi Dadhwal, has   disclosed   that   he   is   addict   of   Charas. He   has purchased the Charas from a person of Chintpurni and he has to sell the same, in order to repay his bank loan. He has hired the taxi for Palampur, in order to sell the same and for that purpose, accused Harshit Sharma (applicant) came with him. 6 2025:HHC:33008 13. After, receiving positive report from the SFSL, Junga,   the   police   has   filed   the   final   report   against   the accused,   before   the   Court   of   learned   Sessions   Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 14. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. The   accused   (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   BNSS. 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. 16. Once,   it   has   been   held   that   the   contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused falls in   the   category   of   ‘commercial   quantity’,   as   per   the 7 2025:HHC:33008 Notification issued by the Central Government, then, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play. 17. 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: “[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. 8 2025:HHC:33008 (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 sub­ section (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 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 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 9 2025:HHC:33008 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 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 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 10 2025:HHC:33008 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.” 18. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   in   a   recent decision, in Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024, titled as Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif, (2024 INSC 1045), the view, as taken in Mohit Aggarwal’s case supra, has again been reiterated. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 39 of the 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 11 2025:HHC:33008 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 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. 12 2025:HHC:33008 (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 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. 19. The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground of undue delay in trial. The applicant, in this case, was arrested on 04.04.2024 and as per the status report, case   is   now   listed   for   recording   the   statements   of   the prosecution witnesses from 12.11.2025 to 14.11.2025. 20. Considering the fact that the case has now been listed   for   recording   the   statements   of   the   prosecution witnesses   from   12.11.2025   to   14.11.2025,   the   custody 13 2025:HHC:33008 period of the applicant is too short to conclude, at this stage, that there is undue delay in the trial. 21. So far as the alleged failure of the I.O. to serve the grounds of arrest upon the applicant is concerned, the I.O.   prepared   a   memo   at   the   spot,   by   virtue   of   which, parcel,   in   which,   the   recovered   charas,   weighing   1.300 kgs., was put and was taken into possession. 22. Not only this, apart from the clothed parcel, the specimen seal, which was obtained, on the piece of cloth and the memo, by virtue of which, the said parcel was taken   into   possession,   was   also   signed   by   both   the accused. Thereafter, when, they were arrested, the arrest memo was also prepared and signed by both the accused. In addition to this, the I.O. has also informed the mother of Harshit Sharma, on her mobile phone No.62300­88311. 23. Cumulative   effect   of   the   above   discussion   is that   the   I.O.,   has   made   substantive   compliance   of apprising/serving the grounds of arrest to the accused and the present is a case of chance recovery, that too, during odd hours of the night. As such, the prosecution/police is 14 2025:HHC:33008 able to make out a case of compliance of mandate to serve the grounds of arrest to the accused. 24. Considering all these facts, there is nothing on the record, on the basis of which, it can be said, at this stage, that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and while on bail, he will not commit any offence. As such, no case to pass any order in favour of the applicant, under Section   483   BNSS,   is   made   out,   at   this   stage. Consequently,   the   bail   application   of   the   applicant   is dismissed. 25. 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 September 23, 2025(ps)