Lekh Raj Vs State of Hp

2025:HHC:30052

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.: 1943 of 2025 Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Decided on : 04.09.2025 Lekh Raj …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the applicant : Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, assisted by ASI Bhag Singh, Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra.

¶10

Virender Singh, Judge

¶11

Applicant–Lekh Raj, 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.28/2025, dated 30^th January, 2025, registered with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra,

¶12

H.P., under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

2

¶14

2025:HHC:30052

¶15

Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’).

¶16

According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police.

¶17

The applicant has termed the accusation against him as false and malicious, as, according to him, nothing has been recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession. He has been arrested by the police on 30.05.2025.

¶18

As per the case of the applicant, there is no iota of evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime in question.

¶19

It is the further case of the applicant that he has been implicated and arrested only on the basis of the confessional statement of accused Jagdish, which, according to the applicant, cannot be said to be the piece of evidence, as per law.

¶20

According to the applicant, he is shepherd by profession and accused Jagdish, who is known to him, bought two sheep from him for a sum of Rs.21,000/ and

¶21

3

¶22

2025:HHC:30052

¶23

he had transferred the said amount to the applicant, on 25.01.2025.

¶24

Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed and on the basis of the said fact, it has been argued by Shri Praveen Chauhan, Advocate that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody.

¶25

Earlier, the applicant has filed application, under Section 482 of the BNSS, before this Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1072 of 2025, which were dismissed as withdrawn on 09.05.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has filed similar application before the Court of learned Special JudgeIII, Kangra at Dharamshala, which was dismissed on 24.06.2025.

¶26

Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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.

¶27

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

¶28

4

¶29

2025:HHC:30052

¶30

When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 30.01.2025, ASI Satender Singh, CIA, Police District Nurpur, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to excise and narcotics, towards Rehan, RajakaTalab, Ganoh, etc..

¶31

9.1. At about 04.10 p.m., when, the police party was present in front of Himachal Bakery near Matholi Police Line, and was talking with two local persons, namely Gopal Singh and Deep Singh, at that time, he noticed two persons coming from Jasoor side and were moving towards Talwara side on foot. One was having blue coloured plastic sack. He was moving in fast speed and other person, who had worn black neck was also having a plastic sack. One person had covered his mouth with red colour scarf. The I.O. inquired from Gopal Singh and Deep Singh, about those persons, upon which, both of them said that they do not know them. Both persons were found to be outsiders. The I.O., called the person, who was having the blue coloured sack, in his hand, however, he has not given any heed to the command of the I.O. As such, both the said

¶32

5

¶33

2025:HHC:30052

¶34

persons were nabbed and I.O. apprised them about the identification. On seeing the identity card, both of them became perplexed, as such, the I.O. developed a suspicion in his mind that both the said persons were having stolen or suspicious articles. As such, their antecedents were ascertained. They disclosed their names as Jagdish and Tega, residents of Chamba.

¶35

9.7. Thereafter, the sack, which they were carrying were checked. On checking, the same were found containing charas, which was kept in a plastic and was concealed in maize flour. On weighment, the said contraband was found to be 2 kilograms 220 grams.

¶36

9.9. After completing other codal formalities, the FIR was registered and the contraband, so recovered, was taken into possession. The accused persons were arrested.

¶37

Thereafter, both the accused persons were produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, from where, they were remanded to the police custody.

¶38

During investigation, accused Jagdish has disclosed that Lekh Raj (applicant) has kept the charas so

¶39

6

¶40

2025:HHC:30052

¶41

recovered in National Bus at Chamba Bus Stand and photographs of the same were sent by Bittu Ram, who has also apprised him about this fact by making video call. Since, the transactions were found from the account of Jagdish with applicant Lekh Raj, as such, bank account of Jagdish was freezed.

¶42

On 01.02.2025, accused Bittu Ram was detained and from his mobile phone, photo of charas was found and it has also been found that he has deleted the whatsapp chat. Mobile phone of Jagdish and Bittu Ram were sent to RFSL Dharamshala. Accused Bittu Ram was arrested and was produced before the Court on 1.2.2025, from where, he was remanded to police custody for four days.

¶43

During investigation, accused Jagdish has disclosed that he has requested his coaccused to supply the Bhang. Consequently, said Lekh Raj kept the charas in National Bus at Bus Stand Chamba.

¶44

During investigation, it was found that accused Jagdish and Teja had not boarded the bus at Chamba Bus Stand and Lekh Raj has supplied the contraband in the

¶45

7

¶46

2025:HHC:30052

¶47

area of Jhajhakothi, as Jagdish Lekh Raj and Bittu Ram were in the area of Jhajhakothi, from 25.01.2025 to 29.01.2025.

¶48

In lieu of the contraband, accused Jagdish has transferred Rs.21,000/, to the account of Lekh Raj, on 25.01.2025. Thereafter, accused Lekh Raj had gone underground. He was searched for and after dismissal of the anticipatory bail, by this Court, accused Lekh Raj was arrested.

¶49

Lastly, it has been apprehended that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he may coerce the witnesses and may indulge in the same activities. He may also not be available for the trial.

¶50

Except the present case, no other case is found to have been registered against him.

¶51

Investigation, in the present case, is complete and after completion of investigation, the police filed the final report in the competent Court of law and the case has been listed on 08.09.2025, for consideration on charge.

¶52

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

¶53

8 2025:HHC:30052

¶54

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.

¶55

The contraband allegedly recovered, in the present case, admittedly, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable, in this case.

¶56

Once, it has been held that the contraband, involved, in the present case, falls in the category of ‘commercial quantity’, then, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play.

¶57

23. Before releasing a person, involved in the crime, it is obligatory upon the Court to record the findings,

¶58

9

¶59

2025:HHC:30052

¶60

which should be more than prima facie findings, regarding existence of the twin conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(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 will not commit any offence.

¶61

In a recent decision, in case, titled as

¶62

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

¶63

Act. The relevant paras 10 to 15 of the judgment are reproduced, as under:

¶64

“10. The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act read as follows:

¶65

“[37. Offences to be cognizable and non bailable. –(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

¶66

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

¶67

(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

¶68

10

¶69

2025:HHC:30052

¶70

be released on bail or on his own bond unless

¶71

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶72

(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.

¶73

(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.

¶74

11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non obstante clause inserted in subsection (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 subsection (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in subsection (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.

¶75

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

¶76

2025:HHC:30052

¶77

decision rendered by a Three Judges Bench of this Court, it has been held thus:

¶78

“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]

¶79

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:

¶80

“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

¶81

2025:HHC:30052

¶82

12

¶83

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]

¶84

14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of SubSection (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. Dovetailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶85

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.”

¶86

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case,

¶87

Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 , titled as ‘Narcotics

¶88

13

¶89

2025:HHC:30052

¶90

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:

¶91

“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.

¶92

39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under:

¶93

(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.

¶94

14

¶95

2025:HHC:30052

¶96

(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.

¶97

(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.

¶98

(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.

¶99

(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.

¶100

(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.”

¶101

(selfemphasis supplied)

¶102

15

¶103

2025:HHC:30052

¶104

In this case, it has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been implicated, on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement made by accused Jagdish.

¶105

The said arguments do not hold water, as involvement of the applicant has been found not only on the basis of the revelation made by accused Jagdish, but, also on the basis of the transaction of Rs.21,000/, which Jagdish has transferred to the account of applicant on 25.01.2025. Although, a defence has been taken by the applicant, in the bail application that the said amount was the sale proceeds of two sheep, which, he has allegedly sold to Jagdish, however, the defence of the applicant, at this stage, is not liable to be considered, as, the applicant would prove or probabilize his defence during the trial.

¶106

At the time of deciding the question of granting the relief to the applicant, in such type of cases, a delicate balance has to be maintained, between the larger interest of the society and the individual liberty.

¶107

Considering the ill effect of the psychotropic substances and drugs over the younger generation, any

¶108

16

¶109

2025:HHC:30052

¶110

relief to the applicant, will give wrong signal to the society that after committing such a heinous crime, having impact on the younger generation, the applicant is moving freely in the society.

¶111

Any relief to the applicant would also encourage others to indulge in the similar activities, which is against the intent of the legislature, for which, the NDPS Act has been enacted.

¶112

In view of the above, there is nothing on the record to give an occasion for this Court to hold that the twin conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are in favour of the applicant, in the present case.

¶113

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 the applicant has not committed the offence and in case, he is ordered to be released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 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.

¶114

17 2025:HHC:30052

¶115

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.

¶116

Record be returned to the quarter concerned.

¶117

September 04, 2025 ( ps )

¶118

( Virender Singh ) Judge

Lekh Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekh Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs M/ Shri Radhe Krishana Hardware Store and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Surya Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surjeet Singh Vs Jagjit Singh

Dharam Pal Vs State of Hp

Jhina Ram Gazta Vs Sukh Ram Sharma

Puneet Pal Singh Vs State of Hp