Danveer Vs State of Hp

¶1

2025:HHC:8618

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

Cr.MP(M) No.643 of 2025 Decided on: 01.04.2025

¶4

Danveer Singh …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the applicant : Ms. Deeksha Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by ASI Bhupi Ram, PS Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.

¶9

Virender Singh, Judge

¶10

By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Danveer Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.116 of 2024, dated 26.11.2024,

¶11

2

¶12

2025:HHC:8618

¶13

registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.

¶14

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

¶15

It has been averred in the application that the contraband, allegedly shown to be recovered, in this case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, according to him, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case.

¶16

Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and nothing is stated to be recovered from the applicant or at his instance.

¶17

According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2025.

¶18

Apart from this, Ms. Deeksha Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings,

¶19

3

¶20

2025:HHC:8618

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that ASI Harnam Singh, I/O PS Gaggal, has submitted a ruqqa to the Police Station, mentioning therein that on 25.11.2024, he was on patrolling duty. At about 11:20 pm, on that day, on Rajol to Ansui road, he had parked his vehicle on the side of the road. At that time, IO was enquiring from Harshit Siphiya, S/o Pushmender Singh and Kapil, S/o Mehar Chand. Meanwhile, he noticed two persons coming from Rasol side and focus of the search light was put upon them, on which, they tried to turn back.

¶24

8.1. It is the case of the police that thereafter, one person, out of the said two persons, had thrown away some article out of his trousers. IO noticed the said fact and got preserved the said thrown away article and the said two

¶25

4

¶26

2025:HHC:8618

¶27

persons were nabbed. On enquiry, the person, who had thrown away the article from his trousers, disclosed his name as Akashdeep Singh, whereas, the other person disclosed his name as Danveer Singh (applicant).

¶28

Thereafter, when, the article, thrown away by accused Akashdeep Singh, was checked, the same was found to be chitta/heroin, which, on weighment, was found to be 12.63 gms. Other codal formalities were completed.

¶29

Thereafter, the FIR in question has been registered and both accused persons were arrested.

¶30

Subsequently, the contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL Junga, for chemical analysis, after complying with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and positive report has been received.

¶31

As per the status report, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the charge-sheet has been submitted on 22.01.2025, in the Court of learned Special Judge, Dharamshala, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dharamshala and the case is now stated to be listed on 02.04.2025 for

5

2025:HHC:8618

COC.

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

¶36

In this case, admittedly, the contraband, allegedly stated to have been recovered, does not fall, within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case.

¶37

Once, it has been held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in that eventuality, the presumption of innocence is still available to the applicant, as the bail application cannot be rejected merely as a matter of punishment, since, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law.

¶38

In the present case, investigation is complete and the police has submitted the challan , in the competent Court of law. This fact is sufficient to demonstrate that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the police.

¶39

Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, the punishment can

¶40

6

¶41

2025:HHC:8618

¶42

only be inflicted, after the conclusion of trial and in the present case, the chances of commencement and conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. As such, he cannot be kept in judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period.

¶43

Except the present case, no other criminal history of the applicant has been mentioned in the status report, nor the same has been argued by learned Additional Advocate General, during the course of arguments.

¶44

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶45

Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released, on bail, in case FIR No.116 of 2024, dated 26.11.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

¶46

This order, however, shall be subject to the

¶47

7

¶48

2025:HHC:8618

¶49

following conditions:-

¶50

a) The applicant shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application;

¶51

b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶52

c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and

¶53

d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶54

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall

¶55

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.

¶56

It is made clear that respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.

¶57

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, through e-mail,

¶58

8

¶59

2025:HHC:8618

¶60

with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e- prison software.

¶61

In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra at Dharamshala. The Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶62

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶63

April 01, 2025 ( Gaurav Thakur )

¶64

Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.04.01 18:10:54 IST

Danveer v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danveer v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Sharma Vs Pradeep Kumar

Manish Kashyap Vs State of Hp

Sen Rishu Umesh Vs Karun Sharma and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ghanshyam alias Sonu Vs State of Hp

Manoj Rana Vs State of Hp and Another