Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:26525 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP (M) No. : 1015 of 2026 Reserved on : 2nd July, 2026 Decided on : 3rd July, 2026 Uploaded on : 3rd July, 2026 Rakesh 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. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Rakesh Kumar No.52, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant–Rakesh Kumar, 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 pendnecy of trial, arising out of FIR No.105 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024, registered under Section 21 of the 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:26525 Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has been named as accused and arrested by the Police in the said case on
25.04.2024.
3. As per the applicant, he has no connection whatsoever with the contraband, shown to be recovered by the Police, in this case.
4. The applicant has termed the FIR registered against him, as false, registered, on the basis of concocted
facts, by asserting the fact that he is an innocent person. 5. It is the further case of the applicant that investigation, in the present case, is complete, as the Police has filed the chargesheet against him, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan. Hence, his custodial interrogation is no longer required. 6. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in
3 2026:HHC:26525 case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving Cr.MP(M) No. 2346 of 2025, which was dismissed by this court on 20.11.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has again filed Cr.MP(M) No.616 of 2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.04.2026. After dismissal of the application, by this Court, only one witness has been examined. This has been pleaded to show that there is change in the circumstances. 8. The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground of delay in trial and noncompliance of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act. 9. Lastly, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the sole witness, when appeared before the learned trial Court, has turned hostile and this fact has also been highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant for seeking the relief of bail. 10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 4 2026:HHC:26525
11. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 25.4.2024 HC Rakesh Kumar No.42, I.O., along with other police officials, had left Police Post Dabhota, for patrolling duty towards Bhatiyan, Jhiriwala side. 11.1. At about 6.30 p.m., the I.O, along with other police officials, was present on the link road from Jhiriwala to Bhatiyan, then, the I.O, noticed a person coming on foot from Jhiriwala side and he was moving towards Bhatiyan side, having blue coloured carry bag in his hand. On seeing the Police vehicle on the spot, the said person, at once, turned towards Katcha path in the fields and had started to run away. His activities raised suspicion, as such, driver was directed to stop the vehicle and with the help of other police official, the said person was nabbed. 11.2.
On inquiry, the said person has disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar (applicant). Thereafter, a passer by, who has disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh, was also apprised about the facts and was requested to associate the police party as independent witness. In the presence of said Balwinder Singh, when, the I.O. inquired
5 2026:HHC:26525 from Rakesh Kumar (applicant) about the carry bag, he has disclosed that the said carry bag was containing medicines. 11.3. On checking the same, it was found containing another black coloured polythene envelope in it, which, on opening, was found to be containing 16 strips, having 60 tablets, in each strip and 9 small strips, having 40 tablets, in each strip, total 1320 tablets of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate. 11.4. The applicant could not produce a valid document/licence to carry those 1320 lomotil tablets. As such, all the tablets were put into the same packet and were sealed with 3 seals of seal having impression ‘M’. 11.5. Consequently, the said contraband was taken into possession and rukka was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested. 11.6. Thereafter, proceedings, under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, were got conducted by producing the same before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh and the contraband, so recovered, was sent to
6 2026:HHC:26525 SFSL Junga, from where, the following report has been received, which has been reproduced, in the status report:
"The exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil is a sample of Diphenoxylate Tablets"
11.7. Lastly, it has been mentioned, in the status report, that except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicant. 12. The investigation is stated to be complete, as the Police has submitted the chargesheet, which is pending adjudication, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Solan and the case is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. 13. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 14.
The contraband allegedly recovered, in the present case, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as per entry number 44, in the notification specifying ‘small quantity’ and ‘commercial quantity’ and in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Mehboob Khan, 2013 (3)
7 2026:HHC:26525 Him.L.R. (FB) 1834), the entire contraband is to be considered, as ‘manufacturing drugs’. 15. The contraband, allegedly recovered, in this case, is 1320 tablets of Lomotil, weighing 83.160 grams, which falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. 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 Notification issued by the Central Government, then, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play. 17. So far as the decision of this Court in Cr. MP(M) No.712 of 2017, titled as Naresh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, with due respect to the law laid down, by this Court, in the said case, the same is not applicable to the present case. The report of the FSL Junga, in Naresh Kumar’s case (supra), is reproduced, as under:
“Various scientific tests such as physical identification, chemical, chromatographic, UV spectrophotometric as well as quantitative
analysis were carried out in the laboratory with the exhibit stated as Microlit under reference.
8 2026:HHC:26525 The above tests performed, indicated the presence of Diphenoxylate hydrochloride in this. On its quantitative analysis, Diphenoxylate hydrochloride was found to be 2.52 mg per tablet. The result obtained is given below.”
18. In the present case, relevant portion of the report of the FSL, is reproduced, as under:
“Exhibit No.1: LOMITIL Description: White colored circular flat tablets in nonmetallic strips of Batch No.03L23063. Total strips = 25(16+09) Total tablets = 1320 [960(16 x 03 x 20) 360(096 x 02 x 20) Average weight of tablet = 63.0 g. Total weight of tablets = 83.160g Manufactured by = RPG
Life
Sciences Limited 3102/A, G.I.D.C Estate
Ankleshwar 393002, Distt. Bharuch, Gujrat India Manufacture/Expir y date = Oct2023/June2026 RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION The representative sample (66 tablets) from the exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil was taken out and homogenized. The homogeneous sample was analyzed using physical, chemical, chromatographic (TLC), and instrumentation (UV Vis Spectrophotometric & HPLC) methods. The
analysis revealed the presence of Diphenoxylate in the exhibit. The result thus obtained is given below. The exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil is a sample of Diphenoxylate tablets”
9 2026:HHC:26525
19. In Naresh Kumar’s case (supra), Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride was found to be 2.52 mg. per tablet, whereas, in the present case, it has specifically been mentioned that total weight of the 1320 Lomitil tablets was found to be 83.160 grams, which, as per entry No.44 of the notification specifying ‘small quantity’ and ‘commercial quantity’ of contraband, falls within the definition of commercial quantity. It has categorically been mentioned, in the status report, that exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil is a sample of Diphenoxylate tables, as such, the decision in Naresh Kumar’s case is not applicable, in the present case. 20. In this case, bail has also been sought on the ground that there is considerable delay in producing the case property, before the Court for conducting the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 21. To buttress this fact, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the contraband was allegedly recovered on 25.04.2024, and the case property was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief
10 2026:HHC:26525 Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh on 30.04.2024, where, the proceedings, under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, have been got conducted. 22. The said contention holds no water, as, it will not point out any illegality or irregularity, in conducting the proceedings, under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, has held that any lapse or delay, in compliance of Section 52A would not vitiate the trial. Relevant paragraph 39(vi) of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“39 (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.”
23. In this case, the relief of bail has also been sought on the ground that there is considerable delay in the trial.
To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for
11 2026:HHC:26525 the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 S.C.R. 697. 24. In the present case, the applicant was arrested on 25.04.2024 and as per the status report, one witness have been examined and the case is now listed on 29th July, 2026 for PWs. 25. From the above facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to derive any benefit from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain’s case, as in the absence of any Special Court under the NDPS Act, the learned trial Court is dealing with all type of cases, including the offences under IPC, Civil and Criminal. Moreover, considering the pace of the trial, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in conclusion of the trial. 26. 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 is not likely to commit any offence. As such, no case to pass any order in favour of the applicant,
12 2026:HHC:26525 under Section 483 BNSS, is made out, at this stage. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is dismissed. 27. 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 July 03, 2026(ps)