1 2026:HHC:37537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.  : 1598 of 2026 Decided on     :    02.09.2026 Prem Pal …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      :  Mr. Prashant   Manhans,   Advocate vice Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent  : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,   Additional   Advocates General,   assisted   by   HC   Surjeet No.10,   I.O.,   Police   Station,   Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Applicant–Prem   Pal,   has   filed   the   present application, under Section  483  of the  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of  FIR No. 13 of 2023, dated 9th  February, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:37537 2023,   registered   under   Section   20­61­85   of   the Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) with Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 3. As per the applicant he is in judicial custody since   9th  February,   2023. Thereafter,   more   than   three years have elapsed and the trial against him, has not yet been concluded. As such, there is undue delay in the trial. 4. It is the case of the applicant that he has no connection with the commission of the alleged offence and has falsely been roped into the controversy. 5. As  per the applicant, he has also availed the relief of interim bail in the present case, and during the period of interim bail, he has not misused the said liberty. 6. The   relief   of   bail   has   been   sought,   by   the applicant, on the ground, that his mother and wife are suffering from serious medical ailments. According to the applicant, there is no one to look after them. In order to 3 2026:HHC:37537 buttress his contentions, medical certificate of Smt. Babita has also been annexed. 7. Apart   from   this,   learned   counsel   for   the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, he is ordered to be released on interim bail. 8. Earlier,   the   applicant   had   approached   this Court   by   filing   similar   applications,   however,   the   said applications   have   been   dismissed   as   withdrawn,   vide orders, dated 27th  February, 2024; 23rd  September, 2024; 16th  December, 2024; 11th  November, 2025; 5th  January, 2026; and 8th April, 2026. 9. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present bail application. 10. When put to notice, the status report, on behalf of the respondent­State, has been filed, mentioning therein that the applicant has been arrested, in a case, registered under Section 20­61­85 of the NDPS Act. 11. As per the status report, Constable Jasvinder Singh,   SIU   Nahan,   submitted   a   rukka,   to   the   Police Station, mentioning therein, that on 9th  February, 2023, 4 2026:HHC:37537 ASI Mahipal, along with the police party, was on patrolling duty. 11.1. At   about   9.30   a.m.,   when   ASI   Mahipal   was present   at   Dhaula   Kuan,   then,   he   received   a   secret information that a person, namely Prem Pal (applicant), resident of Dodra Kwar, is coming in Maruti Car, bearing registration   No.   HP   77   3555,   from   Baayla   side   and   is involved in the business of sale of charas. As per the said secret information, in case, his vehicle is searched, then, charas, in huge quantity, could be recovered. On finding the   said   information   to   be   authentic  and   reliable,   the provisions   of   Section   42(2)   of   NDPS   Act   were   complied with, by submitting report to SDPO. 11.2. At   about   01.15   p.m.,   Maruti   Car,   bearing registration   No.   HP   77   3555,   was   found   coming   from Baayla side, which was stopped and only one person was found sitting in the said vehicle. ASI Mahipal disclosed the identity of the entire team to the said person and disclosed to him about the secret information. In the meantime, a car   was   found   coming   from   Baayla   side,   which   was signalled to stop. In the said vehicle, two persons, namely, 5 2026:HHC:37537 OP Thakur and Suresh Dutt, were found travelling, who were   associated   in   the   investigation   of   the   case,   as independent witnesses. 11.3. Thereafter, driver of vehicle No. HP 77 3555 was asked about his identity, who disclosed his name as Prem Pal   (applicant). He   was   apprised   about   the   secret information,   having   been   received   by   the   police. Subsequently, his vehicle was searched. During search, black coloured stick shaped substance was found inside two polythene packets, kept inside a bag, in the dickey of the car, which, on the basis of experience, was found to be charas. 11.4. On weighment, on electronic weighing machine, the   said   charas   was   found   to   be   9.824   kg. The contraband,   so   recovered,   was   taken   into   possession. Other codal formalities were completed. After completion of the codal formalities, the FIR was registered and the applicant was arrested. 11.5. The contraband, so recovered, was sent to FSL Junga, for chemical analysis, from where, positive report has been received. 6 2026:HHC:37537 11.6. It has been mentioned, in the status report, that trial against the applicant is complete and all the witnesses have been examined and statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.PC, has also been recorded. Now, the case is listed for arguments on 09.09.2026. 12. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. Heard. 14. The  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   of   the   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. 15. The   contraband   allegedly   recovered   from   the applicant,   admittedly,   falls   within   the   definition   of 7 2026:HHC:37537 ‘commercial quantity’. Once, it has been held that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused   (applicant)   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. 16. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024,  titled as  ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, reported in (2024) 11 Supreme Court Cases 372, has reiterated the law, as enumerated by   it,   in  Narcotics   Control   Bureau   versus   Mohit Aggarwal,  reported in  AIR 2022  SC 3444, by holding 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 8 2026:HHC:37537 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. (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 9 2026:HHC:37537 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) 17. In   view   of   the   law   laid   down   by   Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Kashif’s case (supra),  before releasing the person, involved in the crime, it is obligatory upon the Court to record the findings, which should be more than prima­facie  findings,   regarding   existence   of   the   twin conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS   Act. In   other   words,   it   can   be   said   that   before releasing   the   person,   involved   in   the   crime   in   issue, findings have to be recorded by the Court, about the fact that accused is not guilty of such offence, and while on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 18. So far as the relief of bail on the  ground of undue delay in the trial is concerned, the said contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted 10 2026:HHC:37537 as the trial against the applicant is completed and the case is now listed for arguments on 09.09.2026. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case, on the   basis   of   which,   it   can   be   said   that   this   Court   is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and in case, he is ordered to be released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 20. As such, in the absence of the satisfaction of the twin conditions, the applicant is not held entitled for any relief, under Section 483 of the BNSS. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 21. 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 02, 2026 ( ps )