1 2026:HHC:28011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 902 of 2026 Reserved on: 9.7.2026 Decided on : 10.7.2026 Uploaded on:___________ Bilal Khan …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral) Applicant-Bilal Khan, by way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.108 of 2025, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:28011 dated 11.05.2025, registered under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. Applicant has filed bail application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., however, the same has been dismissed, vide order dated 28.11.2025. 4. According to the applicant, he was arrested in the present case, on 7.8.2025, and was remanded to judicial custody, on 11.8.2025, as such, according to him, he has spent more than nine months in custody. 5. As per the stand of the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete, and out of 37 witnesses, only 8 witnesses have been examined. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. 3 2026:HHC:28011 6. According to the applicant, the case, which has been set up by the prosecution, is false one, as he was arrested on 7.8.2025, after about 85 days of commission of alleged offence, as the FIR was registered on 11.5.2025. 7. As per the case of the applicant, the learned Special Judge has not considered the report of SFSL in right perspective, as in the report, it has been mentioned that weight of power is 500 mg, per capsule. 8. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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. 9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application for releasing the applicant on bail. 10. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 11.5.2025, H.C. Anil Kumar No. 645 alongwith other police officials, with electronic machine and laptop had left the Police Station for patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics and gambling Act in the area of Sub 4 2026:HHC:28011 Division, Paonta Sahib, in their private vehicle. At about 1:15 p.m., when, the police party was present at Batamandi, then, he received a secret information, qua the fact that one Bilal Khan, S/o Yakub Ali, R/o Village Bhagwanpur, P.O. Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, alongwith one Aditya had gone to Behat (Uttar Pradesh) on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP17F-0877, for procuring prohibited capsules/medicines, smack/heroine and they are about to reach at Behral. As per the secret information, if the said persons were checked, then from Bilal Khan (applicant) and the Child in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCL’), a huge quantity of contraband could be recovered. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., if he tries to obtain search warrant, in that eventuality, the contraband could be removed from there. As such, he has prepared information under Section 42(2) of the ND&PS Act and submitted the same to SDPO, though Cost. Ajay Kumar. Thereafter, I.O. alongwith other police officials, had proceeded towards Behral to put picketing. 10.1 As per the further case of the Police, at about 2:20 p.m., when, they were present at a distance of about 5 2026:HHC:28011 200 meters from the place, where they had later on put picketing towards Haryana side, on National Highway, then, the I.O. stopped 4-5 vehicles, passing from there and requested the occupants of the same to be the witnesses, but no one was ready to be so, and at about 3:10 p.m, he noticed two persons, coming from Behral Check Post. The I.O. gave his personal identification to them and also apprised them about the secret information, upon which, the aforesaid persons disclosed their names as Pradeep Kumar and Ashish Sharma. They were associated in the police party. At about 3:20 p.m., HC Anil, alongwith other police officials, and independent witnesses, put picketing. At about 4:20 p.m., the picketing team noticed a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP17F-0877, coming from Haryana side. Before reaching the point of picketing, the pillion rider had alighted down from the motorcycle alongwith the bag and rider had gone back to Haryana side on motorcycle. With the help of police officials, the pillion rider was nabbed. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as ‘CCL’. When, the matter was inquired about the rider of the motorcycle, then, he has disclosed that the motorcycle was driven by Bilal Khan (applicant). He was having mobile 6 2026:HHC:28011 number 70185-88501. As per the CCL, he had gone with him to Mirzapur. The rucksack of the CCL was searched and the same was found containing 480 capsules of PROXIOHM-SPAS, containing prohibited salt Tremadol. 10.2 When, the prescription slip of the medical store was sought from him, he could not produce the same, as such, the contraband was taken into possession. 10.3 Other codal formalities were completed and ruqua was submitted, upon which, FIR was registered. The CCL was thereafter arrested and was medico-legally examined. The CCL was released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nahan. The contraband was sent to FSL, Junga, from where, positive report has been received. Charge-sheet against the CCL has been prepared and submitted the same before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nahan. 10.4 Applicant Bilal Khan was arrested on 7.8.2025, as the Police could not nab him. Later on, involvement of Abdul Basit was also found and he was arrested on 9.8.2025. Later on, involvement of chemist/Doctor Mohd. Faizan, was also found. His shop was searched, from where 502 capsules of PROXIOHM-SPAS was found. 7 2026:HHC:28011 Consequently, he was arrested. The charge-sheet, in the present case, has been filed. Out of 37 witnesses, three witnesses have been examined. 11. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that the bail application may be dismissed. 12. Admittedly, the contraband, which has allegedly been recovered, in the present case, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are applicable in the present case. 13. When, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable, in that eventuality, before releasing the applicant, on bail, 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 is not guilty of such offence, for which he has been arrested, and (ii) that while on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 14. The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, have been discussed and explained by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in the year 2004, in cases, titled as Collector of Customs, New Delhi 8 2026:HHC:28011 versus Ahmadalieva Nodira, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 549, and Narcotics Control Bureau versus Dilip Pralhad Namade, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 619. The relevant paras 9 to 11 of the judgment in Dilip Pralhad Namade’s case (supra), are reproduced, as under: “9. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors. (JT 1995(4) SC 253) clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two limitations are (1) an opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose the bail application and (2) satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. 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 the present accused respondent is concerned, are (1) 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 for 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 9 2026:HHC:28011 justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This nature of embargo seems to have been envisaged keeping in view the deleterious nature of the offence, necessitates of public interest and the normal tendencies of the persons involved in such network to pursue their activities with greater vigour and make hay when, at large. In the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing bail. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. 11. A bare reading of the impugned judgment shows that the scope and ambit of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not kept in view by the High Court. Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get bail notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37.” 15. 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, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the law, as enumerated by it, in Narcotics Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the provisions of the NDPS Act should be 10 2026:HHC:28011 interpreted literally, 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. 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 11 2026:HHC:28011 effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (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.” (self-emphasis supplied) 16. In this case, it has vehemently been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was allegedly nabbed, on the basis of alleged revelations, made by the CCL, when the CCL was nabbed by the Police, alongwith the contraband. According to learned counsel for the applicant, whatsoever has been disclosed by him to the Police, is not admissible. This argument of learned counsel for the applicant is devoid of merit, as it is the specific case 12 2026:HHC:28011 of the police, that when, the I.O. was present at Batamandi, then, he received an information, regarding indulgence of the applicant and the CCL in the transportation of the contraband. 17. The I.O. after receiving the information, when found that it was not possible for him to obtain search warrants, then, he has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same to the SDPO, at 1:40 p.m. At 1:15 p.m., the IO came to know about the involvement of applicant Bilal Khan, alongwith CCL. It is the specific case of the Police that at about 4:20 p.m., they noticed a motorcycle, as informed to the I.O. in the secret information, alongwith the rider and the pillion rider, then the pillion rider was made to alight down from the motorcycle, alongwith the rucksack, and the rider took the motorcycle towards Haryana side and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, on inquiry, the CCL disclosed the name of said person as Bilal Khan (applicant). The situation would have been otherwise, had the involvement of the applicant been firstly disclosed by the CCL, when, he was nabbed alongwith the contraband, at the place of picketing, but, it was done by the IO on the basis of secret 13 2026:HHC:28011 information. Contrary to this, involvement of the applicant was brought to the notice of I.O., through the secret information, much prior to 4:20 p.m., i.e. at about 1:15 p.m., when, secret information regarding transportation of the contraband, by applicant Bilal Khan, has been brought to the notice of the I.O. 18. When, Police was already having the secret information, regarding the indulgence of the applicant, then the stand, which has been taken by the applicant, in the present case to seek relief of bail, is not liable to be accepted. 19. Moreover, the plea of the applicant that he had not gone to the spot, when, the CCL was nabbed alongwith the contraband, is the defence, which the applicant would prove during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by leading the evidence, in this regard. 20. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for bail, and the application is accordingly dismissed. 21. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the 14 2026:HHC:28011 case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 10, 2025 ( kalpana)