2026:HHC:31738 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 408 of 2025 and Cr.MP(M) No. 851 of 2025 Reserved on : 7.7.2026 Date of decision: 31.7.2026 Date of uploading : 31.7.2026 _____________________________________________________ 1. Cr. Revision No. 408 of 2025 State of HP ....Petitioner Versus Anuj Chauhan & ors. …Respondents 2. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 851 of 2025 Court on its own motion ...Applicant Versus Neeraj Zilta & anr. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? yes Cr. R. No. 408 of 2025 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G. For the respondents:Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1, 5 to 7 & 20. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2, 15 and 21. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:31738 2 Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 25. Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 19. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.9. Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.10. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.11. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate for respondents No.12, 13 and 33. Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.14. Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.16. Mr. Hariom Prakash, Advocate for respondent No.17. Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate for respondents No.18, 23, 27 to 32. Mr. Swati Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.24. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.26. Cr.M.P(M) No. 851 of 2025 For the petitioner: Court on its own motion. 2026:HHC:31738 3 For the respondents:Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge The above titled cases are being disposed of by a common judgment, as Cr. Revision No. 408 of 2025, has been filed by the State of H.P., against the order dated 1.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), by virtue of which, respondents have been enlarged on bail, in FIR No. 50 of 2024, dated 19.9.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’), registered with Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., whereas, Cr.MP(M) No. 851 of 2025 has been registered as Court has taken cognizance of the matter, while deciding Cr. MP (M) No. 456 of 2025, titled as, ‘Deepak Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh’. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the 2026:HHC:31738 4 respondents, calling upon them, as to why, the bail granted to them, by the learned trial Court in FIR No. 50 of 2024, dated 19.9.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, be not canceled, which has been granted to the respondents vide order dated 29.3.2025, in bail application Nos. 130-131 of 2025. 2. Brief facts leading to filing the present cases, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: 2.1. On 18.09.2024, SI Mehar Chand, I.O. ANTF(FU) CID, along with other police official, left the office in official vehicle, bearing registration No.HP03C-5663, for patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics, towards Dhalli, Theog, Kotkhai, Jubbal, and Kharapathar. 2.2. When, the I.O., along with other police official, was present at a place known as Kharapathar, then, he received a secret information regarding the fact that Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, son of Shri Mohammad Makbool, village Bhatpura, Post Office Sunitpura, Tehsil Karolpura, District Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, is travelling in a taxi No.HP01-A-5028, from Shimla to Rohru and he was having large quantity of Chitta/Heroin with him. 2026:HHC:31738 5 2.3. As per the information, he was going to Rohru, in order to sell the same to someone and in case, the said vehicle is intercepted and the bag of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi is searched, then, large quantity of Chitta could be recovered. 2.4. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., due to paucity of time, in case, he would have obtained search warrants, in that situation, the possibility of removal of the contraband was there. As such, the I.O. complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to his superior. 2.5. Thereafter, the I.O. put picketing between Kotkhai- Kharapathar and contacted Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Darkoti Ramesh Chauhan on telephone. After sometime, Ramesh Chauhan and Ravinder Chauhan, reached at the spot. They were apprised about the secret information and associated in the raiding party, as independent witnesses. 2026:HHC:31738 6 2.6. It has also been mentioned in the status report that at about 8.55 p.m., as per the information, taxi No.HP01A-5028, reached on the spot from Kotkhai side. With the help of police officials, the said vehicle was got stopped on the side of the road and the driver and the person, sitting on the rear seat, were apprised about the secret information. 2.7. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Deepan Lal and the person, sitting on the rear seat, disclosed his name as Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. Thereafter, the bag, which Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was carrying, was searched, along with vehicle. From the bag, as well as, from the vehicle, nothing incriminating was found. This fact, was documented. 2.8. Thereafter, the option, as per Section 50 was given to the driver, as well as, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, upon which, both of them had opted to give their search to the gazetted police officer. Thereafter, at about 12.20 a.m., Dy. S.P. Sidharth Sharma, SDPO, Theog, was requested to 2026:HHC:31738 7 come to the spot, upon which, he had reached at the spot at 1.25 a.m. Meanwhile, Constable Vikrant reached at the spot along with the receipt of the information, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. 2.9. Thereafter, SDPO had inquired from Deepan Lal and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and oral direction was given to SI Mehar Chand to search Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. During search, from the underwear of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, a black coloured plastic envelope was found, which, on opening, was found to be containing 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin. 2.10. Apart from this, currency notes of Rs.2530/- and Aadhar Card were also found, which were taken into possession. In the personal search of Deepan Lal, nothing incriminating was found. The entire process was photographed and videographed on the spot. As such Rukka was sent to the Police Station, for registration of the FIR, upon which, FIR, in question was registered. 2.11. Thereafter, SI Mehar Chand, submitted the 2026:HHC:31738 8 photocopy of the information, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, memo regarding personal search of the raiding party and official vehicle, along with carbon copy, search memo of Taxi No.HP01A-5028 and personal bag, along with carbon copy, consent memo, under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Dipan Lal, along with carbon copy, memo regarding recovery of 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, memo regarding personal search of driver Deepan Lal, along with carbon copy, Mobile phone marka ‘Redmi’ of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, by virtue of which, taxi No.HP01A-5028 Alto 800, along with documents, was taken into possession, along with carbon copy, photocopy of Rukka, parcel of case property, containing 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, along with specimen seal having impression ‘M’, one cloth parcel containing currency notes of Rs.2530/- along with specimen seal, zimini No.1, along with carbon copy, NCB-I form in triplicate, along with carbon copy, Form No.1 duplicate, along with carbon copy, and other documents, 2026:HHC:31738 9 before the Incharge, Police Station, Kotkhai. 2.12. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, under Section 180 of the BNSS. Thereafter, accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was interrogated and was arrested on 19.09.2024, at about 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the case property was deposited with MHC Police Station, Kotkhai and the accused was medico-legally examined. 2.13. During investigation, the accused disclosed that he is in the business of selling Chitta/Heroin, as they are members of interstate gang, along with Shahi Mahatma. He has further deposed that he, in connivance with Pradeep Ranta @ Pankaj Ranta, used to bring Chitta from Delhi and give the same to Shahi Mahatma, whereas, Shahi Mahatma, through peddlers, used to sell the same in the Rohru area. Sometimes, peddlers used to take Chitta from the house of Shahi Mahatma at Pinjore. According to him, Shahi Mahatma is doing the business from the said house/room. 2.14. Muddasir Ahmad Mochi has also disclosed that accused Shahi Mahatma, through mobile phone location 2026:HHC:31738 10 used to sell Chitta to the intended purchaser. Shahi Mahatma has purchased Sim card, in the name of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and after using his Aadhar Card and Pan Card, got opened 2-3 Bank accounts in Kashmir and used to get money, in those Bank accounts. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi sometimes through cheques and sometimes through cash used to withdraw the same, and pay the said amount to Pradeep Ranta. 2.15. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, had also facilitated the contact of Shahi Mahatma with the smugglers in Kashmir and they were now planning to bring Chitta from Kashmir. On 19.09.2024, SDPO, constituted a SIT by deputing SHO Police Station, Theog as incharge of the SIT. 2.16. It is the further case of the police, as mentioned, in the status report, that on 20.09.2024, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, was produced before the Court of JMFC Chopal, Camp at Theog, from where, he was remanded to police custody. Inventory of the case property was got prepared by producing the same before the Court of learned Judicial 2026:HHC:31738 11 Magistrate First Class, Chopal and samples were sent to SFSL Junga, whereas, the remaining case property was deposited with District Malkhana, Kaithu. On 20.09.2024, SIT incharge, Inspector Jaswant Singh associated Shahi Mahatma, in the investigation and he was arrested on 11.50 p.m. on that day. 2.17. During investigation, Shahi Mahatma has disclosed that from the last 8 months, he is in the business of selling Chitta. Harinder Manta and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta are also involved in the business of distribution of Chitta and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, is known to him for the last 5 years and all are in this business. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, used to purchase Chitta sometimes from Delhi and sometimes from Karnal, and hand over the same to him in his room at Pinjore, from where, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, used to supply the Chitta at Rohru. Thereafter, he used to place the Chitta at different locations and from those locations, he used to further pass on to 2026:HHC:31738 12 Rakesh @ Tinu, resident of Seema (Badali), Sarthak Sood resident of Rohru, Ravinder (Motta), Naresh resident of Bijori, Neeraj resident of Melthi and Ashu (Aate) resident of Rohru. 2.18. The above persons, according to Shahi Mahatma, after receiving the Chitta from different locations, used to separate the same in small packets and sell the same further to other persons. The persons, who used to purchase Chitta, used to contact him and transfer the amount in the bank account of Muddasir, which he had got opened in Srinagar (J&K). According to him, earlier he had used his Dhanlaxmi bank account opened with Punjab National Bank and now he is using the bank accounts opened in the name of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. 2.19. Shahi Mahatma, with the help of Harinder Manta and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, has made a syndicate and they work, as drug peddlers and supply the same to different locations. In lieu of that, they used to give free Chitta to all the peddlers, for their consumption. Shahi 2026:HHC:31738 13 Mahatma had also talked to the drugs smugglers of Kashmir; namely Mushtaq and Javed. 2.20. On 21.09.2024, accused Shahi Mahatma, was produced before the Court, from where, he was remanded to police custody. 2.21. It has been mentioned, in the status report, that on 20.09.2024, mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, was sent to SFSL Junga. On 23.09.2024, mobile phones of Shahi Mahatma and his wife were also taken into possession. Thereafter, those were sent to SFSL Junga. Result regarding mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, has been received. Service provider has been requested to provide the CDRs of mobile phones of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and Shahi Mahatma. 2.22. Thereafter, bank statements of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Shahi Mahatma were obtained. Perusal of the same shows that there are transactions of crores of rupees in the bank accounts of above two accused persons. Shahi Mahatma is using his vehicle, bearing registration 2026:HHC:31738 14 HP10C-1425, and after receiving the information regarding arrest of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, on 19.09.2024, accused Shahi Mahatma, along with his companion Pankaj Ranta, had tried to flee away, in the said vehicle. Pankaj Ranta succeeded in fleeing away, whereas, accused Shahi Mahatma was arrested by RPF. 2.23. On 16.10.2024, accused Harinder Manta, was arrested, who, on inquiry, disclosed that he is in the habit of consuming Chitta from the year 2020 and earlier, he used to get Chitta from his friends, but, thereafter, he is purchasing the same from Delhi. In the year 2022, Solan police had arrested him for allegedly possessing 150 grams Chitta. Again, in the year 2023, he has been arrested by the Police, along with Chitta. Thereafter, in the month of January/February, he has contacted Shahi Mahatma for purchasing Chitta, upon which, Shahi Mahatma, used to provide Chitta in Rohru. 2.24. Accused Harinder Manta, used to transfer the amount in the Bank account of Shahi Mahatma, 2026:HHC:31738 15 maintained in ICICI Bank. Thereafter, Shahi Mahatma, used to forward him the location, from where, he used to lift Chitta. Thereafter, accused Shahi Mahatma had allured him to join the business of Chitta. The said offer was accepted and he had also joined the said business, thereafter. 2.25. Accused Harinder Manta used to purchase Chitta from Delhi from Nigerian national and on the directions of Shahi Mahtma, he used to keep Chitta at a particular location and in lieu of that, amount was paid to him in cash. In the month of March, 2024, amount was transferred online, but, mostly, he used to get amount in cash. In the month of March, 2024, he had purchased 100 grams Chitta on three occasions and sold the same in the area through Shahi Mahatma. On the basis of above facts, accused Harinder Manta was arrested. 2.26. Thereafter, the police had obtained the statement of bank account No.048701503074 maintained by Harinder Manta with ICICI Bank Rohru. Perusal of the same shows 2026:HHC:31738 16 that accused Harinder Manta, from his bank account had transferred a sum of Rs.21,500/- to the bank account of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Das & Sons. During investigation, it has been found that accused Arvind Chauhan, has transferred a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, in the bank account of Harinder Manta, from 18.07.2023 to 11.09.2024. 2.27. Similarly, accused Naresh had transferred a sum of Rs.14,000/- from 05.03.2024 to 12.09.2024, in the bank account of Harinder Manta. Apart from this, there is withdrawal of Rs.36,69,010/- and deposit of Rs.36,67,942/- in the bank account of Harinder Manta. 2.28. On analysis of the statement of account of accused Shahi Mahatma and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, it was found that there were transactions of lacs of rupees in the bank account of Shahi Mahtama, maintained with ASP International Bank. 2.29. Thereafter, bank account statements of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with ASP International Bank were 2026:HHC:31738 17 obtained and it was found that Deepak Sharma has made transactions from his bank account, which is linked with mobile No.93171-12131. 2.30. As per the said statement, on 22.05.2024, Deepak Sharma has transferred a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.700/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.800/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.500/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.15,000/- was credited in his account. 2.31. Apart from this, in the bank account of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Dass & Sons, there are transactions of Rs.5600/- on 11.09.2024 and in the Bank 2026:HHC:31738 18 account No.7541002100001139, maintained with ASP International Bank, on 21.02.2024, he has transferred a sum of Rs.600/- on 21.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/-, on 14.03.2024, a sum of Rs.2000/-, on 17.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3300/-, on 19.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3300/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3200/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.2900/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.300/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.900/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.80/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.200/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.800/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.200/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 2026:HHC:31738 19 20.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/-. Thus, he has made total transactions worth Rs.32,680/-. 2.32. It is the further case of the Police that accused Deepak Sharma, had made a transaction of Rs.5870/- in the bank account of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, maintained with Axis Bank, as such, there is total transaction of Rs.59,150/-. 2.33. On 14.01.2025, accused Deepak Sharma was associated, who has disclosed that he is consuming Chitta from the year 2024. Initially, when, he has started consuming Chitta, he used to purchase the same from local boys; namely Naresh Kumar, Ankush. Thereafter, with his friends and other boys of the area, he had started purchasing Chitta, for further sale about one year ago. Naresh, resident of Rohru, has disclosed to him about the involvement of Shahi Mahatma. Thereafter, he has started purchasing Chitta, from Shahi Mahatma. 2.34. It has also been mentioned, in the status report, that in the Bank account of Deepak Sharma, there were 2026:HHC:31738 20 transactions, from the account of accused Purskrit Verma, of a sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 15.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 16.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 31.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 01.11.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 09.12.2023, a sum of Rs.400/- on 11.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1100/- on 14.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 19.12.2023, a sum of Rs.700/- on 20.12.2023, a sum of Rs.400/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 04.01.2024, a sum of Rs.900/- on 11.01.2024, a sum of Rs.370/- on 13.01.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 13.01.2024, a sum of Rs.1200/- on 08.02.2024, a sum of Rs.800/- on 16.02.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of Rs.100/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/- on 26.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 29.03.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 10.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 10.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1800/- on 12.08.2024, a sum of Rs.700/- on 14.08.2024, a sum of Rs.900/- on 24.08.2024. 2.35. It has further been mentioned in the status 2026:HHC:31738 21 report that accused Jatin Thakur, has transferred a sum of Rs.678/- on 26.08.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 24.09.2024, a sum of Rs.2580/- on 25.09.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of Rs.3858/-. 2.36. Accused Mohit Thakur, has transferred a sum of Rs.300/- on 07.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/- on 09.08.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 09.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 11.08.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on 11.08.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of Rs.3600/-. 2.37. Similarly, accused Naresh has transferred a sum of Rs.400/- on 05.02.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on 17.02.2024, a sum of Rs.1300/- on 19.03.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of Rs.2200/-. 2.38. Similarly, accused Brij Mohan has transferred a sum of Rs.1800/- on 19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 01.03.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 01.03.2024. Thus, he has transferred a sum of Rs.2800/-. 2026:HHC:31738 22 3. Admittedly, in the present case, the accused persons have been named, as accused, for the commission of offence, punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act, involving the commercial quantity. 4. Once, it has been held that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused- person 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. 5. 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, before releasing the accused person in a case, involving commercial quantity. 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: 2026:HHC:31738 23 “[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. (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 nonobstante clause inserted in sub-section (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 sub-section (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. 2026:HHC:31738 24 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 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 2026:HHC:31738 25 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 Sub-Section (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. Dove-tailed with 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.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 1045, has again reiterated the law, as enumerated by it, in Mohit Aggarwal’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, 2026:HHC:31738 26 in this case, has held that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature. 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. 2026:HHC:31738 27 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) 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) 7. Judging the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, this Court will now proceed further to determine the fact as to whether, the prayer as made in the petition, is liable to be accepted. 8. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has allowed the bail applications, without considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, more particularly, 2026:HHC:31738 28 Section 37(1)(b)(ii). The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are reproduced as under: “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. (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.” 9. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Aggarwal’s and in Kashif’s cases (supra), it is mandatory for the Court to record the findings, qua the existence of twin conditions, as enumerated in the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The learned trial Court has fallen into error while holding that 2026:HHC:31738 29 the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not applicable. The findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court, seems to be based upon the assumption qua the fact that the involvement of the accused persons is based upon the confessional statement, qua the details regarding financial transaction, warranting comprehensive legal scrutiny. 10. When, a thing has been mandated by the legislature to do in a particular manner, then, the same cannot be by-passed by the Court, on the basis of self- drawn assumptions. In para-30 of the order impugned herein, the learned trial Court has assumed that the financial transaction in question, pertains to purchase of contraband, the prosecution’s submissions reveal that none of the accused engaged in any single substantial financial transaction that would associate them with the recovery of a commercial quantity from Mudasir Ahmed Mochi. It has also been held by the learned trial Court that the accused 2026:HHC:31738 30 persons may have developed drug dependency at a tender age and were acquiring the contraband for personal consumption. Neither this fact has been mentioned by the accused persons in their bail applications, nor, such stand has been taken by the prosecution, in the present case. 11. The impugned order is also silent about the fact as to how the learned trial Court has drawn the conclusion that the offences against the applicants are punishable under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, which has been stated to be inherently bailable. 12. The learned trial Court has although exercised its discretion, while deciding the question of release of the applicants on bail, but the discretion must be exercised on the sound judicial principles and keeping in view the intent of the legislature in enacting Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 13. The legislature has mandated that before releasing the accused, involved in the offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act, where commercial quantity is involved, findings qua existence of the twin 2026:HHC:31738 31 conditions must be recorded and those findings should be more than prima-facie findings. Instead of recording the findings about the existence of twin conditions, the learned trial Court has given a clean chit to the accused persons by holding that they have developed drug dependency at a tender age, and were acquiring contraband for personal consumption. In such situation, the order passed, by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as findings as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act are sine qua non, before allowing the application for bail. 14. Consequently, the orders dated 1.1.2025, and 29.3.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, bail has been granted to the respondents/accused persons, are ordered to be set aside and the matter is accordingly remanded back to the learned trial Court. 15. The learned trial Court is requested to decide the matter afresh, in view of the observations, so made, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of the record. Till the decision of the bail applications afresh, the order of 2026:HHC:31738 32 the learned trial Court, granting bail, will remain in force on the same terms and conditions. 16. Intimation regarding this order be given to the sureties of the accused persons. 17. In view of above, the present matters are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. 18. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) July 31, 2026 Judge (kalpana)