The High Court dismissed a bail application under BNSS Section 483 filed by an accused in an NDPS case involving 1320 tablets of Diphenoxydate. The court held the quantity was commercial, the investigation was complete, and alleged delays did not warrant bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:26525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) No. : 1015 of 2026 Reserved on : 2nd July, 2026 Decided on : 3rd July, 2026 Uploaded on : 3rd July, 2026 Rakesh Kumar …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. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Rakesh Kumar No.52, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan.
Virender Singh, Judge
Applicant–Rakesh Kumar, 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 pendnecy of trial, arising out of FIR No.105 of 2024,
dated 25.04.2024 , registered under Section 21 of the
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2026:HHC:26525
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police
Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P .
applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in
3 2026:HHC:26525
case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
4 2026:HHC:26525
the status report disclosing therein, that on 25.4.2024 HC Rakesh Kumar No.42, I.O., along with other police officials, had left Police Post Dabhota, for patrolling duty towards Bhatiyan, Jhiriwala side.
11.1. At about 6.30 p.m., the I.O, along with other police officials, was present on the link road from Jhiriwala to Bhatiyan, then, the I.O, noticed a person coming on foot from Jhiriwala side and he was moving towards Bhatiyan side, having blue coloured carry bag in his hand. On seeing the Police vehicle on the spot, the said person, at once, turned towards Katcha path in the fields and had started to run away. His activities raised suspicion, as such, driver was directed to stop the vehicle and with the help of other police official, the said person was nabbed.
11.2. On inquiry, the said person has disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar (applicant). Thereafter, a passer by, who has disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh, was also apprised about the facts and was requested to associate the police party as independent witness. In the presence of said Balwinder Singh, when, the I.O. inquired
5 2026:HHC:26525
from Rakesh Kumar (applicant) about the carry bag, he has disclosed that the said carry bag was containing medicines.
11.3. On checking the same, it was found containing another black coloured polythene envelope in it, which, on opening, was found to be containing 16 strips, having 60 tablets, in each strip and 9 small strips, having 40 tablets, in each strip, total 1320 tablets of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate.
11.4. The applicant could not produce a valid document/licence to carry those 1320 lomotil tablets. As such, all the tablets were put into the same packet and were sealed with 3 seals of seal having impression ‘M’. 11.5. Consequently, the said contraband was taken into possession and rukka was sent to the Police Station for registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested.
11.6. Thereafter, proceedings, under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, were got conducted by producing the same before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh and the contraband, so recovered, was sent to
6
2026:HHC:26525
SFSL Junga, from where, the following report has been received, which has been reproduced, in the status report:
"The exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil is a sample of Diphenoxylate Tablets"
11.7. Lastly, it has been mentioned, in the status
report, that except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicant.
Himachal Pradesh versus Mehboob Khan, 2013 (3)
7
2026:HHC:26525
Him.L.R. (FB) 1834 ), the entire contraband is to be considered, as ‘manufacturing drugs’.
Junga, in Naresh Kumar’ s case (supra), is reproduced, as under:
“Various scientific tests such as physical identification, chemical, chromatographic, UV spectrophotometric as well as quantitative analysis were carried out in the laboratory with the exhibit stated as Microlit under reference.
8
2026:HHC:26525
The above tests performed, indicated the presence of Diphenoxylate hydrochloride in this. On its quantitative analysis, Diphenoxylate hydrochloride was found to be 2.52 mg per tablet. The result obtained is given below.”
18 . In the present case, relevant portion of the
report of the FSL, is reproduced, as under:
“Exhibit No.1: LOMITIL Description:
White colored circular flat tablets in nonmetallic strips of Batch No.03L23063.
Total strips = 25(16+09) Total tablets = 1320 [960(16 x 03 x 20) 360(096 x 02 x 20) Average weight = 63.0 g. of tablet Total weight of = 83.160g tablets Manufactured by = RPG Life Sciences Limited 3102/A, G.I.D.C Estate Ankleshwar 393002, Distt. Bharuch, Gujrat India Manufacture/Expir = Oct2023/June2026 y date
RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION
The representative sample (66 tablets) from the exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil was taken out and homogenized. The homogeneous sample was analyzed using physical, chemical, chromatographic (TLC), and instrumentation (UV Vis Spectrophotometric & HPLC) methods. The analysis revealed the presence of Diphenoxylate in the exhibit. The result thus obtained is given below.
The exhibit stated to be tablets of Lomotil is a sample of Diphenoxylate tablets”
9
2026:HHC:26525
10
2026:HHC:26525
Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh on 30.04.2024, where, the proceedings, under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, have been got conducted.
“39 (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.”
11
2026:HHC:26525
the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State
(NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 S.C.R. 697 .
Hussain ’s case, as in the absence of any Special Court under the NDPS Act, the learned trial Court is dealing with all type of cases, including the offences under IPC, Civil and Criminal. Moreover, considering the pace of the trial, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in conclusion of the trial.
12 2026:HHC:26525
under Section 483 BNSS, is made out, at this stage. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is dismissed.
( Virender Singh ) Judge
July 03, 2026 (ps)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a drug trafficking case involving commercial quantity where investigation is complete and delay in trial is not undue.
Whether delay or lapse in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial or entitles the accused to bail.
Whether the decision in Mo. Muslim @ Hussain applies given the absence of a dedicated Special Court under the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mehboob KhanFollowed¶14
State of Himachal Pradesh versus Mehboob Khan, 2013 (3) Him.L.R. (FB) 1834
Naresh Kumar v. State of Himachal PradeshDistinguished¶17
Cr. MP(M) No.712 of 2017, Naresh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh
Narcotics Control Bureau v. KashifApplied¶22
Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024, Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif, Citation No.2024 INSC 1045 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)Distinguished¶25
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 S.C.R. 697 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar
State of Himachal Pradesh
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
