2026:HHC:1095 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 2980 of 2025 Decided on: 05.01.2026 Luxmi Dutt @ Laxmi Dutt @ Lakshmi Dutt …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant : Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge ( oral ) Applicant Luxmi Dutt @ Laxmi Dutt @ Lakshmi Dutt has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 174 of 2024, dated 17.12.2024, registered under Sections 20 and 25 of the 2 2026:HHC:1095 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as the ND&PS Act) and Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, registered with Police Station Sadar Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. According to the applicant he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 3. According to the applicant, he has no concern whatsoever with the crime in question. The story of prosecution is also stated to be doubtful and full of suspicion and police could not collect any evidence to connect the application, with the crime in question. 4. Highlighting the fact that the personal search of the applicant was conducted in violation to the provisions of Section 50 of ND&PS Act, according to him, ground of arrest has also not been supplied to him. The investigation of the present case is stated to be completed and out of 32 witnesses, only 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that due to the long period of custody, the provisions 3 2026:HHC:1095 of Section 37 of ND&PS Act, do not apply, in the present case. 6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 7. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 17.12.2024, HC Rakesh Kumar No. 224, has submitted a rukka to Police Station Sadar Nahan, disclosing therein that on 17.12.2024, he along with other police officials proceeded on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to excise and narcotic etc. and moved from his office towards Jamta, Mahipur, Bechar-ka-Baag, Khari, Rajgarh etc. 7.1 They left SIU office at about 3:00 pm and when they were present near Durga Mata Mandir at Chakli, then, at about 4:15 pm, he received a secret information regarding the indulgence of Luxmi Dutt resident of Chalana, Mahipur (applicant) in the business of selling charas and as per the information, said person on his motorcycle, No. HP71-7210, had started from his house to Nahan, along with a rucksack, in which, large quantity of charas is there and in 4 2026:HHC:1095 case, said Luxmi Dutt (applicant) is intercepted and rucksack is checked, then, large quantity of contraband can be recovered. 7.2 According to the I.O., in case, he obtains the search warrant, in that eventuality, the contraband would be removed from there, as such, he prepared the information under Section 42(2) of ND&PS Act and submitted the same to Dy. S.P. Headquarter. Thereafter, he waited for some time for independent witness and after 10- 15 minutes, at about 5:00 pm, from the side of Mahipur, one tipper bearing No. HP16C-2015, came there. Only driver was in the tipper. He was stopped and was apprised about the information. He was requested to become independent witness. On enquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Rohit son of Sh. Surinder Singh. I.O. associated, Rohit along with HC Babu Ram No. 644 and C. Vishal Surya No. 539 as independent witnesses and waited for Luxmi Dutt. 7.3 At about 5:15 pm, one person was found coming on motorcycle No. HP71-7210, which, with the help of other 5 2026:HHC:1095 police officials, was got stopped. I.O. gave his personal search and meanwhile motorcyclist jumped towards the side of the road and tried to flee away, however, he was nabbed alongwith the rucksack, due to said fact, he sustained minor bruises. Thereafter, bag was checked, which, on checking, was found to be containing 1.156 kg charas. 7.4 Other codal formalities were completed. Rukka was submitted. After registration of FIR, accused was arrested. Contraband was produced before the Court, where, the inventory proceedings were conducted and controlled sample was sent to SFSL Junga, from where, positive report was received. 7.5 After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, which is pending adjudication in the Court of Special Fast Track Court (Rape or POCSO) District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. 7.6 It is the further case of the police that out of 32 witnesses, 17 witnesses have been examined and case is now listed on 27.02.2026, 28.02.2026 and 02.03.2026, for recording the statements of PWs at Sr. No. 4, 6, 7; 16, 17, 6 2026:HHC:1095 21; and 27 and 29, respectively. 7.7 Apart from the present case, FIR No. 45/2004, dated 11.12.2004, under Sections 430, 353, 506, 34 of IPC has been found to be registered against the applicant, in which, he was acquitted by the court of learned JMFC Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. 7.8 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. Admittedly, the contraband, which has allegedly been recovered, in the present case, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. Once, this fact has been stated by the police in the status report, then, admittedly, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable, in the present case. 9. 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 7 2026:HHC:1095 offences, and (ii) that while on bail, he will not commit any offence. 10. 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. 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 8 2026:HHC:1095 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 non obstante 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. 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 9 2026:HHC:1095 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 10 2026:HHC:1095 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 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.” 11. Moreover, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal 11 2026:HHC:1095 Appeal No.5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, wherein, it has been held that in case of commercial quantity of the contraband, the accused shall generally be not released on bail, until or unless, the conditions, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are held to be existed in favour of the applicant. 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 xxx 39. The upshot of the above discussion may 12 2026:HHC:1095 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. (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.” (self-emphasis supplied) 12. In the absence of the twin conditions, as enu- merated, under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, this Court cannot accept the arguments of learned counsel, appearing 13 2026:HHC:1095 for the applicant, who has sought the release of the appli- cant, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 13. So far as the delay in trial is concerned, this Court is of the view that keeping in view the fact that out of 32 witnesses, 17 PWs have already been examined, there is no undue delay in the trial, as such, said contention is liable to be rejected. 14. Considering the observations and discussions, made above, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to relief of bail, at this stage. As such, the present application is dismissed. 15. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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 05th January, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)