2025:HHC:42391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP (M) No. :  2726 of 2025 Reserved on : 02.12.2025 Decided on    : 09.12.2025 Kamal Kumar …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. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional  Advocates  General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Kamal   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, in case arising out of  FIR No. 85 of 2025,   dated   15.05.2025,   under   Section   22   of   the 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:42391 Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND&PS Act’), registered with Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person and has falsely been implicated by the police, in the present   case.     The   investigation   of   the   present   case   is complete and the applicant is in judicial custody. 3. The   applicant   had   further   pleaded   that   the applicant is suffering from 60% disability, permanent in nature, as such, he is unable to walk without the help of walker.  In this regard, he has annexed disability certificate Annexure P­2. 4. The   applicant   has   tried   his   luck   by   moving similar application before learned Special Judge­I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., however, his application has been dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2025. 5. On the basis of the above facts, Sh. K.S. Gill, learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   applicant   has   given certain undertakings, to which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 3 2025:HHC:42391 6. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 15.05.2025, HC Rakesh Kumar No. 224, I.O. SIU District Sirmaur, H.P. has submitted a rukka to Police Station Puruwala, through C. Dinesh   Kumar   No.   342,   disclosing   therein,   that   on 15.05.2025, he along with the other police officials, in his private vehicle bearing No. HP79­0852, was on the duty to conduct patrolling, to detect the crime relating to excise and narcotic drugs, left the office of SIU Nahan at 1:15 pm, towards Kolar, Paonta Sahib, Kafota, Shillai etc. 6.1 After conducting the patrolling, when, the police party reached in the market near Kafota, then, at about 4:55 pm, he received a secret information about the fact that Surinder Singh is running a shop in the ground floor, in his building, which is situated near Senior Secondary School,   Jamna   (Jakhana). His   shop   is   in   front   of   the school gate and from the said shop, he is selling prohibited medicine   codeine   phosphate,   not   only   to   the   school children, but also to local people. The said Surinder Singh, as   per   the   information,   has   brought   huge   quantity   of codeine phosphate syrup from Vikasnagar by purchasing 4 2025:HHC:42391 the same from Prabha Medical Store and in case, the said shop is searched, then large quantity of codeine phosphate vials could be recovered. 6.2 As per the information, in case, I.O. obtains the search warrant, in that eventuality, contraband could be sold or may be removed from there. The said information was authentic and reliable. As such, information under Section   42(2)   of   the   ND&PS   Act,   was   prepared   and submitted   to   SDPO   Paonta   Sahib,   through   C.   Narinder Singh No. 605, at 5:10 pm. 6.3 Thereafter,   the   I.O.,   along   with   the   police officials, proceeded towards place Jakhana. At about 5:45 pm, when, he reached near Government Senior Secondary School Jakhana, then, he met Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kando Cheog, Sh. Shyam Dutt and another person, who, on inquiry disclosed his name as Jitender Singh son of Sh. Telu Ram. I.O., thereafter, gave his personal identification to   the   said   persons   and   also   apprised   them   about   the secret   information   and   associated   them   as   independent witnesses in the raiding party. Along with them, C. Vishal No. 559 was associated as independent witness. 5 2025:HHC:42391 6.4 Thereafter, police party along with independent witnesses   reached   in   the   daily   need   shop   of   Surinder Singh. One person was found sitting, at the counter. Upon inquiry, he disclosed his name as Surinder Singh son of late  Sh. Narayan  Singh. He   apprised   about  the   secret information and before searching the shop, the I.O., as well as, the police officials and independent witnesses had given their personal search to Surinder Singh. Separate memo was prepared in this regard. Thereafter, in the presence of independent witnesses and Surinder Singh, his shop was searched. 6.5 During search of his shop, a rucksack having four zips on it, was found, which, on opening was found containing   Triprolidine   &   Hydrochloride   &   Codeine Phosphate Syrup in the bigger pocket. Total 55 vials were found and under ND&PS Act, those have been shown to be as prohibited drugs. However, one vial was found to be of 100 ml and thus total quantity was found to be 5.5 litres. The said syrup was manufactured by Three B Healthcare Ltd.   Opp   Dental   College,   Rampur   Road   Paonta   Sahib, District   Sirmaur   H.P.   and   marketed   by   CADIZ 6 2025:HHC:42391 LIFESCIENCE 39/2/6, Basement Floor Ground Floor, First Floor   and   Second   Floor,   Site   For   Industrial   Area Sahibabad, Sahibabad Gaziabad U.P. 6.6 When the owner of the shop was inquired about the   license/permit   to   contain   the   said   contraband,   he could not produce the same. From the other pocket of the bag, currency notes of various denomination were found, which, on counting, were found to be Rs. 16,700/­. All the 55 vials were taken into possession along with currency notes. 6.7 The   rukka   was   prepared   and   the   same   was submitted   to   the   Police   Station,   upon   which,   FIR   in question was registered. Spot map was prepared. Accused Surinder Singh was arrested on 15.05.2025. Thereafter, the contraband was produced before the Court, where the proceedings   under   Section   52­A   of   ND&PS   Act   was conducted and sample was sent to SFSL Junga and the second sample, as well as, the remaining contraband was deposited with Malkhana Nahan. 6.8 On inquiry, the applicant had dislcosed that on 13.05.2025, he has purchased 75 vials of cough syrup at 7 2025:HHC:42391 the rate of Rs. 170/­ each, from Prabha Medical Store, which is owned by chemist Kamal Kumar (applicant) and till 15.05.2025, 20 vials were sold to different people, who had come to attend the Bishu fare. 6.9 It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   on 17.05.2025, ASI Krishan Singh Bhandari, along with other police officials had gone to Prabha Medical Store along with local Drugs Inspector, Sh. Manender Singh Rana. During search, three Lykarex­T cough syrup and 120 Spasmed capsules containing prohibited Salt Tramadol, were found. Kamal   Kumar   (applicant)   could   not   produce   any   stock register or sale register qua the prohibited drugs. Those drugs were taken into possession. 6.10 As per the police, cough syrup was found to be of   the   same   batch,   which   were   found   in   possession   of accused   Surinder   Singh   on   15.05.2025. Statement   of witnesses, under Section 180 of BNSS, were recorded and accused   Kamal   Kumar   (applicant)   was   arrested   on 17.05.2025, at 9:30 pm. Thereafter, Section 29 of ND&PS Act   was   added,   in   this   case. Accused   Kamal   Kumar (applicant) was produced before the learned JMFC Nahan 8 2025:HHC:42391 on 18.05.2025, from where, he was remanded to police custody till 20.05.2025. 6.11 During investigation, he had allegedly disclosed that   he   used   to   purchase   cough   syrup   and   Tramadol tablets from Mahadev Chemist Vikasnagar. 6.12 According to the police, on 13th/14th May, 2025, raid was conducted on the said chemist shop and owner of the   same   was   arrested. During   investigation,   rent agreement,   which   was   executed   between   Kamal   Kumar (applicant) and landlord Suresh Kumar Sharma, was taken into possession. The documents regarding the license of the said shop was obtained from Drug Controller, upon which, Manender Singh Rana had supplied the license of Kamal Kumar (applicant). 6.13 As per the report of SFSL, the Lykarex­T Cough Syrup was found to be containing Codeine. The capsules were found to be sample of Tramadol capsules. After the completion   of   the   investigation,   police   filed   the   charge­ sheet against accused Surinder Singh and applicant Kamal Kumar under Sections 22 and 29 of ND&PS Act and same 9 2025:HHC:42391 has   been   submitted   in   the   competent   Court   of   law   on 31.10.2025, and case is now listed for checking of copies. 6.14 Lastly, it has been apprehended that in case, applicant Kamal Kumar is released on bail, he may not be available for trial and may coerce the witnesses. Apart from this, according to the police, in the event of his bail, he may indulge in the same activity. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 7. Coming to the first ground, upon which, bail has been sought, i.e. non­supply of the grounds of arrest is concerned, the applicant, as per the status  report, was arrested on 17.05.2025, and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  “Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025, titled as Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.,  Neutral Citation No.  2025 INSC 1288”, in which the   earlier   decision   of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in “Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799”, has been discussed and it has been held in para No. 58 that the procedure i.e. supply of the written grounds of arrest, will apply from the date of judgment i.e. November, 10 2025:HHC:42391 6th  2025. Relevant paragraph No. 58, of the judgment is reproduced, as under:­ “58. We   are   cognizant   that   there   existed   no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding   as   above,   in   our   view,   would ensure   implementation   of   the   constitutional   rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrest henceforth.” (self emphasis supplied). 8. In   this   case,   a   futile   attempt   has   also   been made   by   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   applicant, when   he  argued   that   the   alleged   contraband   recovered, does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are not applicable, in the present case. The said arguments are devoid of merits, as, the present case has been registered under Sections 22 and 29 of ND&PS Act, as such, from the stand   taken   by   the   police   that   Lykarex­T   cough   syrup, allegedly found from the shop of applicant Kamal Kumar is of the same batch, of which, 55 vials were recovered from accused   Surinder   Singh. Situation   would   have   been 11 2025:HHC:42391 otherwise,   had   the   police   registered   the   separate   case against   applicant   Kamal   Kumar   and   against   accused Surinder   Singh. When,   on   the   revelation   of   Surinder Singh, police raided the shop of applicant Kamal Kumar, then, the vials of the same batch were found, as such, the entire contraband is to be taken as recovery in the present case,   which   admittedly   falls   within   the   definition   of commercial quantity. 9. Rigors of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are   held   to   be   mandatory   in   nature,   as   held  by   the decision   of   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”, 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:­ 12 2025:HHC:42391 “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. 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 th13. 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’, Neutral   Citation   No.2024   INSC   1045, wherein,   it   has   been   held   that   in   case   of commercial quantity of the contraband, the acce 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 13 2025:HHC:42391 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 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) 10. In order to comply with the said mandatory provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the ND&PS Act, now 14 2025:HHC:42391 this Court would proceed to discuss, at this stage, that the   twin   conditions   are   existing   in   favour   of   the applicant, or not. It cannot be held, at this stage, that the applicant has not committed such offence and it can also not be held that while on bail, he will not commit any offence. As such, in the absence of any material on record,   the   findings   cannot   be   recorded   in   favour   of applicant. 11. So far as the arguments that the applicant is 60% disabled and cannot walk without the help of walker, is concerned, on that  ground  too,  provisions  of  Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the ND&PS Act cannot be ignored. Moreover, the   bail   application   is   totally   silent   about   the   difficulty being faced by the applicant on account of his disability. Superintendent of Jail, on the application by the applicant, may redress those problems, in case, the same are being faced by the applicant. 12. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for his release on bail, at this stage. 15 2025:HHC:42391 13. Consequently,   the   present   bail   application   is dismissed. 14. 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 09th December, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)