2026:HHC:2721 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No. : 2944 of 2025 Reserved on : 5th January, 2026 Decided on : 8th January, 2026 Mahavir …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. Balram Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial & Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Mahavir, 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 the trial arising out of FIR No.65 of 2024, dated 18.03.2024, registered under Sections 21, 29, 8C 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:2721 and 27A of the 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 is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, on the statement of Nand Lal, who is father of the main accused Suresh Kumar, in which, he has alleged to the police that the contraband belongs to the applicant and he has paid a sum of Rs.27,000/- to Suresh Kumar on 15.3.2024. 3. It is the further case of the applicant that there is alleged transaction of Rs.4,23,060/-, from 30.11.2023 to 17.03.2024. 4. As per the applicant, he has no concern with the alleged crime and nothing has been recovered from his possession. 5. According to the applicant, investigation, in the present case is almost complete, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody that too for indefinite period. 3 2026:HHC:2721 6. As per the applicant, that the entire police story is totally improbable and appears to be concocted, just to falsely implicate the applicant, in the present case. 7. The applicant has also tried his luck before the learned Special Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., by moving Bail Application No.177-S/22 of 2024. However, the said application has been dismissed, vide order, dated 03rd October, 2024. 8. Thereafter, the applicant has approached this Court, by way of Cr.MP(M) No.2460 of 2024, which was also dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 13.11.2024 and Cr.MP (M) No.2061 of 2025, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 16.09.2025. 9. Apart from this, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate, appearing for 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. 10 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 4 2026:HHC:2721 11. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 18.3.2024, SDPO Nalagarh, along with other police officials, was present at village Vodala. They had put the picketing to preventing the trafficking of illicit liquor, in view of the ensuing Lok Sabha Election. They were checking the vehicles crossing from that spot. 11.1. At about, 06.30. p.m., from Ratyod side, one person was noticed coming on foot, who, on inquiry, disclosed his name as Joginder Singh son of Shri Mast Ram. He has also disclosed that he is Ward Member of Ward No.11, of Gram Panchayat Dabhota. 11.2. In the meanwhile, from Ratyod side, at about 6.35 p.m. one Pick-up vehicle bearing No.HP93-9431 Marka Tata Yodha, being driven by its driver, was found coming. The SDPO has signalled him to stop, but, the driver, at once tried to reverse the vehicle. Consequently, with the help of police officials, the vehicle was intercepted and was stopped. The driver was found to be perplexed. 11.3. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar son of Shri Nand Lal, but, could not give 5 2026:HHC:2721 the satisfactory answers to the queries, as such, on the basis of suspicion, the vehicle was searched, but, nothing incriminating was found. 11.4. Keeping in view the fact that the driver was perplexed, a suspicion raised, in the mind of the SDPO, that he might be concealing something illegal, in his vehicle. Consequently, the bonnet of the vehicle was opened and on the conductor side of the bonnet, five carton boxes were found to be concealed. ‘Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate Tablets IP Lomotil’ was found to be written on every box. 11.5. The SDPO, with the help of police officials opened those boxes and total 28140/- tablets of Lomotil were found. The said person i.e. Suresh Kumar, could not produce any document to transport the same. 11.6. Consequently, the said contraband was taken into possession and rukka was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested. 12. After completion of the codal formalities, the contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL Junga. During the Police custody, the accused was taken to Sikandra 6 2026:HHC:2721 Pharmacy (Agra), Agra, where, Mahabir Singh (applicant), was associated and arrested. 13. It is the further case of the police that on 12.8.2024, Nand Lal, father of accused Suresh Kumar, made a complaint to the police that the contraband, which was allegedly found from the possession of his son was meant for being delivered to Veer Chand and for that, according to the father of Suresh Kumar, on 15.3.2024, Veer Chand has transferred a sum of Rs.27,000/- in the account of his son. 14. Consequently, the Bank statement of Suresh Kumar was obtained and on perusing the same, the said fact was found to be correct. 15. Thereafter, CDR was also obtained and on checking the CDR of mobile phone of accused Suresh Kumar, from 1.2.2024 to 18.3.2024, from the mobile phone of accused Suresh Kumar, 26 calls were found to be made to the mobile number of accused Veer Chand. On 15/16.03.2024, accused Veer Chand was found to be in touch with accused Suresh Kumar. 7 2026:HHC:2721 16. On 12.8.2024, Veer Chand was associated in the investigation and was arrested. Thereafter, the statement of Bank account of Veer Chand was obtained. Till 14.08.2024, in the bank account of accused Veer Chand, a sum of Rs.5,35,918/- was found as balance, whereas, in the same Bank, he was having the FDs total amounting to Rs.17,30,538/-. Relevant documents were taken into possession and accused were arrested. 17. It has also been found, in the investigation, that from 30.11.2023 to 15.3.2024, accused Veer Chand from his Bank account, maintained in Union Bank of India, Nalagarh, has transferred a sum of Rs.3,55,502/- through online transfer to Bank Account of Suresh Kumar, which was maintained in State Bank of India, Nalagarh Branch. 18. Similarly, It has also been found that from the Bank account of accused Suresh Kumar, from 30.11.2023 to 17.3.2024, a sum of Rs.4,23,060/- has been found to be transferred in the Bank account of Mahaveer (applicant), who, as per the police report, was running a medical store in Sikandra (Agra). 8 2026:HHC:2721 19. It has also been pleaded, in the status report, that the statement of account of accused Veer Chand, from his banker Union Bank of India Nalagarh, has been obtained, according to which, in the bank account of accused Veer Chand bearing No.520101203173461, a sum of Rs,5,35,918/- has been shown to be balance as on 14.08.2024. Apart from this, he was having four FDs of Rs.17,30,538/-. Those documents were taken into possession. 20. During investigation, it has been found that accused Veer Chand used to transfer amount in the account of his co-accused Suresh Kumar for purchasing the prohibited Lomotil Tablets, as such, Sections 27A and 8C of the NDPS Act was added in the present case. 21. It is the further case of the Police that as per statement of account from 30.11.2023 to 15.03.2024, accused Veer Chand transferred a sum of Rs.3,55,502/- through online mode from his account bearing account No.520101203173461, in the bank account of Suresh bearing No.55156299763, maintained with State Bank of India, Nalagarh Branch. 9 2026:HHC:2721 22. Lastly, it has been submitted that apart from the present case no other case has been found to be registered against the applicant. It has also been apprehended that in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in the same activities. 23. Investigation, in the present case, is complete and the police has filed the charge-sheet, before the competent Court of law, which is now listed for PWs, on 19th and 20th February, 2026. 24. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 25. The contraband, allegedly recovered, in this case, is 28140 tablets of Lomotil, which falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. 26. 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. 27. In a recent decision, in case, titled as Narcotics Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal, 10 2026:HHC:2721 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. 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: “[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 2026:HHC:2721 11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non- obstante clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the conditions imposed in sub-section (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. 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 12 2026:HHC:2721 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 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 13 2026:HHC:2721 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.” 28. 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, 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 14 2026:HHC:2721 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 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 15 2026:HHC:2721 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) 29. At this stage, there is nothing on record to probabilize the defence, which has been taken, by the applicant, in this case, nor to justify the payment of the amount on account of transportation charges, as such, merely pleading the said fact, is too short to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 30. 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 has not committed the offence or while on bail, he will not commit such offence. As such, no 16 2026:HHC:2721 case to pass any order in favour of the applicant, under Section 483 BNSS, is made out. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is dismissed. 31. 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 January 08, 2026(ps)