Dismissed¶27

Sujeet v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Jul 2026CRMPM/1069/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail refused under S.483 BNSS; S.37 NDPS twin conditions not satisfied; 1.254 kg Charas held 'commercial quantity'; recovery from rucksack of co-accused real brother/pillion rider Ankit on motorcycle UP11CD-4775; conscious and exclusive possession argument rejected as 'liberal' reading; no trial delay (13/27 PWs examined; dates 16.09.2026, 17.09.2026); relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045 (reiterating Mohit Aggarwal); FIR No.2 of 2025, P.S. Majra, Sirmaur; applicant Sujeet, 19, resident of Saharanpur, U.P.; earlier refusals 25.03.2025 (Special Judge-I Nahan), withdrawal 26.06.2025, dismissal 30.10.2025; HP High Court, Virender Singh, J.; Cr. MP (M) No. 1069 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the applicant was not held entitled to any relief under Section 483 of the BNSS and the bail application was dismissed.

Sujeet Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the applicant was not held entitled to any relief under Section 483 of the BNSS and the bail application was dismissed.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial under Section 483 of the BNSS, arising out of FIR No.2 of 2025 (Sections 20, 25 and 29 NDPS Act), notwithstanding the rigors and twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable to a 'commercial quantity' of contraband. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

The contraband allegedly recovered from the applicant (1.254 kilograms of Charas) admittedly falls within the definition of 'commercial quantity'; as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable to this bail application.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing on the record to hold that the twin conditions enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act operate in favour of the applicant; in the absence of satisfaction of the twin conditions (that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail), the applicant is not entitled to any relief under Section 483 of the BNSS.

¶27

Key takeaways

The argument that the recovery was not effected from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant is rejected: the 1.254 kg of Charas was found in the rucksack carried by co-accused Ankit, the applicant's real brother and pillion rider, with whom it was not unnatural for him to travel at about 9.10 p.m.; accepting the argument would amount to reading the statutory provisions 'liberally' and not 'literally'.ratio¶25
There is no undue delay in the trial: keeping in view the pace of the trial, 13 of 27 prosecution witnesses stand examined and the case is listed for recording statements of five witnesses on 16.09.2026 and 17.09.2026.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Virender Singh, J.), Cr. MP (M) No. 1069 of 2026, decided 09.07.2026: Section 483 BNSS regular-bail application of Sujeet, arraigned in FIR No.2 of 2025 (03.01.2025), P.S. Majra, District Sirmaur, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 NDPS Act, dismissed. On secret information, motorcycle UP11CD-4775 was intercepted at Majra Chowk at about 9.10 p.m. on 02.01.2025; 1.254 kg of Charas was found in a rucksack carried by co-accused Ankit, the applicant's real brother and pillion rider. Holding the quantity to be 'commercial quantity', the Court applied the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act, relying on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045), which reiterated Mohit Aggarwal on the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37(b)(ii); found neither twin condition satisfied; rejected the conscious/exclusive-possession argument (travelling with a real brother does not exempt the pillion rider, and accepting it would read the statutory provisions 'liberally' and not 'literally'); and found no undue delay in trial (13 of 27 prosecution witnesses examined; case listed for 16.09.2026 and 17.09.2026). Bail dismissed; observations confined to the bail disposal and not the merits. Third attempt, after refusal by Special Judge-I, Nahan (25.03.2025), withdrawal before this Court (26.06.2025) and dismissal of Cr.MP(M) No. 2394 of 2025 (30.10.2025).

¶1

2026:HHC:27641

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. : 1069 of 202 6 Reserved on : 08th July, 2026 Decided on : 09th July, 2026 Uploaded on : 09th July, 2026 Sujeet …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the applicant	:	Mr. K.S. Gill, Advoca	te
For the respondent	:	Mr. Tejasvi Shar	ma,	Mr.
		Mohinder Zharaick	and	Mr.
		H.S. Rawat,	Additi	onal
		Advocates General	with	Mr.
		Rohit Sharma,	De	puty
		Advocate General.

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge

¶8

Applicant Sujeet 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, arising out of FIR No.2 of 2025, dated 03.01.2025, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic

¶9

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

¶12

2026:HHC:27641

¶13

referred to as the ‘NDPS’ Act), with Police Station, Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P.

¶14

According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, by the police, for allegedly possession 1.254 kilograms of Charas.

¶15

As per the applicant, the story of the prosecution is absurd, baseless and imaginary and no evidence could be collected to demonstrate the connection of the applicant with the crime, in question. He has termed the entire prosecution case as false and frivolous.

¶16

The applicant is stated to be in judicial custody since 03.01.2025. Investigation, in the present case, is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed in the competent Court of law.

¶17

It is the further case of the applicant that conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.

¶18

According to the applicant, he is young man of 19 years and sole bread earner of his family.

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:27641

¶21

According to the applicant, the contraband has

¶22

not been recovered from the ‘conscious’ and ‘voluntary’ possession of the applicant and the same has been recovered from his co-accused/pillion rider Ankit. These facts, have been pleaded to demonstrate that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not applicable in the case of the applicant, as it was not unnatural for him to travel, along with his real brother.

¶23

All these facts have been pleaded to impress upon the Court that Section 29 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, in the present case.

¶24

The relief has also been sought on the ground of undue delay in the trial.

¶25

The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 25.03.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has moved Cr.MP(M) No.1351 of 2025, before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.06.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has filed Cr.MP(M) No. 2394 of 2025, which was dismissed on 30.10.2025.

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:27641

¶28

The applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

¶29

On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

¶30

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 02.01.2025, Constable Vishal No.283 SIU Nahan, produced a rukka, which was submitted by HC Rakesh Kumar I.O., SIU Nahan, mentioning therein, that on 02.01.2025, the I.O., along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotic.

¶31

13.1. At about 8.15 p.m., when, the police party reached at Majra Chowk on National Highway, then, the I.O. received a secret information, about the fact that two young men Ankit and Sujeet are indulged in the sale of Charas and are residing in a rented accommodation at Neharwale road Surajpur (Paonta Sahib).

¶32

13.2. As per the information, both the said brothers are coming towards Majra, on their black coloured

¶33

5 2026:HHC:27641

¶34

motorcycle, make Splender, bearing registration No.UP11CD-4775, and in case, the said motorcycle is intercepted and searched, a large quantity of contraband could be recovered.

¶35

13.3. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., in case, search warrants are obtained, in that eventuality, delay could be caused and there is every possibility that the contraband could be removed from there. As such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions of Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the information to the SDPO, Paonta Sahib.

¶36

13.4. Thereafter, the I.O., along with other police officials, proceeded towards Neharwale road. When, they reached near Johadon, then, on the left side of the road, the I.O., noticed one person, who was called by the I.O. and inquired about his name and address. He disclosed his name as Sanjeev Kumar son of late Shri Prakash Chand. He was apprised about the secret information and was requested to be the independent witness, to which, he agreed. Out of the Police team, HC Babu Ram No. 644 and

¶37

¶38

2026:HHC:27641

¶39

Constable Manoj No.659, were also associated as

¶40

witnesses.

¶41

13.5. Thereafter, picketing was done, in order to wait for the said bike. At about 09:10 p.m., from Surajpur side, as per the secret information, motorcycle, bearing registration No.UP11CD-4775, make Splender, black coloured, being driven by its driver, reached at the spot. Two persons were there on the motorcycle. Both of them were nabbed, along with the bike, by the I.O.

¶42

13.6. Thereafter, in order to comply with Section 105 of the BNSS, Constable Vishal No.283, was deputed to click the photographs and videography of that process. The I.O., has given his identification to the bike rider, upon which, he has disclosed his name, as Ankit and the pillion rider disclosed his name, as, Sujeet (applicant). Both of them have been apprised about the secret information.

¶43

13.7. Thereafter, the ruck sack, which the bike rider was having, was checked. On checking the same, a transparent envelope was found containing stick shaped black coloured substance, which, on smelling and on the basis of experience, was found to be Charas. On

¶44

¶45

2026:HHC:27641

¶46

weighment, the said Charas was found to be 1.254 kilograms. Other codal formalities were completed.

¶47

13.8. After registration of the case, accused persons were arrested and the contraband was taken into possession. After completion of other codal formalities, the contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga, from where, positive report has been received.

¶48

After completion of the investigation, chargesheet, has been filed, in the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan. There are total 27 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 13 have been examined and the case is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 16.09.2026 and 17.09.2026.

¶49

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

¶50

16. As per the police, the contraband, involved in the present case, is 1.254 kilograms of Charas, which was found from the possession of the accused persons. The said contraband was found from the ruck sack, which accused Ankit was carrying on his shoulder and accused

¶51

¶52

2026:HHC:27641

¶53

Sujeet (applicant) was pillion rider. Ankit and Sujeet (applicant) are real brothers.

¶54

17. 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

Once, it has been held that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused (applicant) falls in the category of ‘commercial quantity’, as per the Notification issued by the Central Government, then, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play.

¶56

The contraband allegedly recovered from the applicant, admittedly, falls within the definition of

¶57

¶58

2026:HHC:27641

¶59

‘commercial quantity’. As such, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable, in this case.

¶60

20. Before releasing a person, involved in the crime, it is obligatory upon the Court to record the f i ndings, - which should be more than prima facie fndings, regarding i 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, fndings have to be recorded by the Court, about i the fact that accused is not guilty of such ofence, and f while on bail, he will not commit any ofence. f

¶61

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 , titled as ‘Narcotics 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:

¶62

“8. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the

¶63

¶64

2026:HHC:27641

¶65

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.

¶66

xxx xxx xxx

¶67

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

¶68

(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.

¶69

(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 fndings as mandated in Section 37 isi sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the ofences under the NDPSf Act.

¶70

(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.

¶71

(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

¶72

¶73

2026:HHC:27641

¶74

which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.

¶75

(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.

¶76

(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.”

¶77

(self-emphasis supplied)

¶78

In view of the above, there is nothing on the

¶79

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.

¶80

So far as the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, qua the fact that the recovery has not been effected from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant, is concerned, the said arguments are totally devoid of merits.

¶81

The applicant, along with his real brother, was found moving on motorcycle No.UP11CD-4775 and they

¶82

¶83

2026:HHC:27641

¶84

were intercepted on the basis of a secret information received by the I.O. and during the search, contraband weighing 1.254 kilograms was found from the rucksack carried by the pillion rider Ankit, who is not stranger, but, real brother of the applicant.

¶85

Applicant is resident of village Chal Khajirpur, P.O. Kamu Majra, Tehsil Behat, District Saharanpur, U.P. and were found moving on the motorcycle, at odd hours of the day, at about 9.10 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. As such, the arguments qua the fact that the contraband was not recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the applicant is not accepted, as it would amount to read the statutory provisions ‘liberally’ and not ‘literally’.

¶86

So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant qua the undue delay in the trial is concerned, keeping in view the pace of the trial, this Court is of the view that there is no delay in the trial, as, out of 27 witnesses, 13 have been examined and the case is now listed, for recording the statements of five witnesses, on 16.09.2026 and 17.09.2026.

¶87

13 2026:HHC:27641

¶88

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 is not guilty of the offence and in case, he is ordered to be released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any such 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.

¶89

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 conf i ned, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶90

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶91

July 09, 2026 (ps)

Sujeet v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ludar Chand Vs State of Hp

Sunita Devi Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Shriram General Insurance Company Vs Prem Singh and Ors.

Rajiv Negi Vs the Chief Engineer (Sz) and Another

Kamla Devi Vs Manohar Lal

Gian Chand Sharma Vs Suresh Chand