Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to an individual accused of possessing narcotic substances, determining that the case does not fall within the purview of commercial quantity under the relevant statute. The court ordered his release subject to strict conditions, stating compliance with the judicial process.

The applicant was arrested in connection with an FIR registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) at Police Station Mehatpur, District Una. The allegations against the applicant include the possession of 25.240 kilograms of poppy husk, following a police patrol operation conducted by the Anti-Narcotics Task Force (ANTF). According to the prosecution, the police, acting on a secret tip-off, intercepted a vehicle suspected of transporting narcotics and discovered the contraband upon search.

The prosecution submitted that on October 28, 2024, Inspector Sarvjeet Singh of ANTF-FU-CID, Kangra, along with other police officials, was on patrol duty to detect narcotics-related offenses in Una and Mehatpur. Around 11:50 a.m., the police received confidential information regarding the transportation of poppy husk in a vehicle bearing registration number HP72C-8691. The information was deemed credible, and immediate action was taken to apprehend the suspect before any possible removal of contraband from the vehicle.

At approximately 12:25 p.m., the police intercepted the vehicle and conducted a search, which led to the recovery of 25.240 kilograms of poppy husk. The search was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses, and all legal formalities, including the submission of a rukka for FIR registration, were duly completed. Following the procedural requirements under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, a report was forwarded to the Additional Superintendent of Police. The contraband was then sent for forensic examination at FSL Junga, which confirmed the presence of narcotic substances.

The police further disclosed that the applicant had previously been booked under FIR No.118 of 2021 for a similar offense, where he was allegedly found in possession of 16.980 kilograms of poppy husk. The prosecution argued that granting bail to the applicant could lead to his involvement in repeated offenses, potentially affecting public safety and fuelling drug abuse among the youth. Moreover, concerns were raised regarding the likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.

In response, the defense contended that the applicant had been falsely implicated and argued that mere registration of an earlier case did not establish guilt. It was further submitted that the alleged contraband recovered in the present case did not qualify as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, which meant that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the Act did not apply. The defense stated that prolonged incarceration of the applicant without trial amounted to a violation of his right to personal liberty and sought bail on these grounds.

The court examined the facts and noted that the applicant was in judicial custody since his arrest. It observed that "mere registration of a case does not take away the presumption of innocence from the applicant." The court stated that although the applicant had a prior case against him, he had not yet been convicted, which reinforced the principle of presumed innocence.

With regard to the quantity of the recovered substance, the court observed that "the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case." The court considered that stringent provisions applicable to commercial quantities were not relevant in this case and that normal bail considerations applied.

Addressing the prosecution’s concerns about the applicant absconding or influencing witnesses, the court noted that adequate safeguards could be put in place to prevent such occurrences. It stated that "no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, that too, for an indefinite period." The court further stated that pre-trial detention should not equate to punishment, and liberty should not be curtailed unnecessarily.

The court also took into account the likelihood of the trial being prolonged. Given the procedural aspects involved in narcotics cases and the overall backlog of pending cases, the court opined that the applicant’s continued incarceration could result in undue delay in his access to justice. The court remarked that "chances of commencement and conclusion of trial against the applicant are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody."

After examining the submissions and legal provisions, the court granted bail to the applicant, subject to strict conditions to ensure his compliance with the judicial process. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The release order was accompanied by the following conditions:

• "The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation if required and regularly attend the trial court on each date of hearing, seeking exemption only with appropriate application."

• "The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever."

• "The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts."

• "The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the court."

Furthermore, the court directed the jail authorities to ensure the immediate implementation of the bail order. A soft copy of the order was instructed to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Una, through email for necessary action. The authorities were also directed to update the release order in the e-prison software and inform the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Una, in case of any delay in compliance.

Case Title: Jaswinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr.MP (M) No.28 of 2025
Bench: Justice Virender Singh

[Read/Download order]