Dismissed¶55

Ludar Chand v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2026CRMPM/914/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail; Section 37(b)(2) twin conditions; commercial quantity cannabis 1.211 Kg; independent witnesses turned hostile; undue delay in trial; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.11 of 2024; P.S. Bhuntar, District Kullu; Cr.MP(M) No.914 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Virender Singh; Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045; bail application dismissed; 2026:HHC:27527.

What did the court decide?

Since the contraband allegedly recovered (1.211 Kg cannabis) falls within the definition of commercial quantity, it is mandatory for the Court to satisfy itself about the existence of the twin conditions enumerated in Section 37(b)(2) of the NDPS Act before releasing the accused on bail. ¶29

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the twin conditions enumerated in Section 37(b)(2) of the NDPS Act are existing in favour of the applicant, so as to entitle him to release on bail during the pendency of the trial. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

At the bail stage the Court cannot record findings that the accused applicant has not committed the offence, nor that he would not commit any offence if released; commenting on the prosecution case because two alleged eye-witnesses turned hostile, and discussing the evidentiary value of the witnesses, would amount to pre-judging the prosecution case and is the prerogative of the learned trial Court.

¶51

Key takeaways

The plea of undue delay in trial was rejected: the trial is at the verge of completion, 12 of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined with only two remaining and the case is listed for 20.08.2026; from the pace of the trial, it cannot be said that there is undue delay, even though the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.01.2024.ratio¶49
The applicant is not able to make out a case for grant of bail; the application is dismissed.ratio¶55
The observations made in the judgment shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, being confined only to the disposal of the present bail application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under S.483 BNSS during pendency of trial in FIR No.11 of 2024 (S.20 NDPS Act, P.S. Bhuntar, District Kullu) alleging possession of 1.211 Kg of cannabis (Charas), a commercial quantity. Held, the twin conditions of S.37(b)(2) NDPS Act had to be satisfied before bail could be granted. The Court declined to evaluate the testimony of the independent witnesses who turned hostile, observing that such assessment, and any finding that the applicant is not guilty or would not re-offend, is the prerogative of the trial Court and would amount to pre-judging the prosecution case. Plea of undue delay in trial rejected: 12 of 14 prosecution witnesses examined, only two remaining, case listed for 20.08.2026; applicant in judicial custody since 10.01.2024. The Court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045 (NDPS Act to be interpreted literally, not liberally; recording of findings under S.37 is sine qua non for bail). Application dismissed; observations confined to the disposal of the bail application and not an expression of opinion on merits.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.914 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Ludar Chand …Applicant Versus

¶3

State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram:

¶4

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

¶5

For the applicant : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶6

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶7

Applicant-Ludar Chand 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.11 of 2024, dated 07.01.2024, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

¶8

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

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶11

allegedly possessing 1.211 Kg. of cannabis (Charas), whereas, according to him, he has no concern whatsoever, with the crime in question.

¶12

As per the case of the applicant, the alleged witnesses, who have been associated in the investigation by the IO, when, appeared in the witness box, have turned hostile.

¶13

On the basis of the above facts, the applicant has pleaded that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him, in judicial custody, for indefinite period. Investigation, of the present case, is stated to be complete and charge sheet has been filed in the competent Court of law, where upon, cognizance has been taken, charges have been framed and two independent witnesses have already been examined.

¶14

Highlighting the statements of those two alleged independent witnesses, the applicant has further pleaded that there is no other evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime.

¶15

According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 20.03.2025. Thereafter, he has again approached this Court by moving Cr.

¶16

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶17

M.P.(M) No.1636 of 2025, which was dismissed, vide order dated 25.07.2025.

¶18

The relief of bail has also been sought merely on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial.

¶19

Apart from this, Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate, appearing for 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.

¶20

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

¶21

When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 07.01.2024, ASI Netar Singh, along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics. While, on patrolling, at about 06.05 PM, when, they were on their way to Ruadu side, then, they noticed a person sitting on the stone, under the bridge and on seeing, the police party, he, at once, threw away the bag on the road and ran away from the spot. Upon this, IO, developed a suspicion that the said bag might be containing some illegal things, as such, he had nabbed the person and inquired about the reason for throwing the bag,

¶22

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶23

however, he could not give any satisfactory answer and got perplexed. Thereafter, two persons, who were found moving on the road, were associated. After inquiring their names and addresses, those persons, namely, Sunaru son of Atma Ram and Narender Kumar son of Om Chand, were associated as independent witnesses.

¶24

10.1. Thereafter, the name of the person, who had thrown the bag was ascertained. On inquiry, he had disclosed his name as Ludar Chand (applicant). Thereafter, the said rucksack was opened, which, on opening and checking was found containing a black coloured stick shaped substance, which, on checking, was found to be cannabis (Charas). On weighment, the said cannabis was found to be 1.211 Kg.

¶25

10.2. Other codal formalities were completed and after registration of FIR, the applicant was arrested. After conducting the inventory proceedings, Under Section 52(A) of NDPS Act, the contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga, from where, the positive report has been received,

¶26

10.3. As per the status report, there are 14 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 12 have been examined and the case is now listed for 20.08.2026, for recording the statements of PWs at Serial Nos.11 & 12, before the learned Special Judge, Kullu.

¶27

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶28

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

¶29

The contraband, allegedly recovered, in this case falls within the definition of commercial quantity. Once, the accused has allegedly been nabbed for possessing contraband, which, falls within the definition of commercial quantity, in that eventuality, before releasing such accused, on bail, it is mandatory for this Court to satisfy itself about the existence of twin conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(b)(2) of the NDPS Act.

¶30

In a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 12120 of 2024, titled as, ‘Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif’, Citation No. 2024 INSC 1045 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

¶31

held that the provisions of NDPS Act should be considered literally not liberally. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 39 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:-

¶32

“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

¶33

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶34

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.

¶35

xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶36

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

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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. (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

¶39

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.”

¶44

(self-emphasis supplied)

¶45

In such situation, the material question, which arises

¶46

before this Court, is as to whether, the twin conditions, as per

¶47

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶48

provisions of Section 37(b)(2) of the NDPS Act, are existing in favour of the applicant, or not.

¶49

The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground that there is undue delay in the trial. The said arguments are devoid of merit, as the trial is at the verge of completion. Out of the 14 witnesses, the evidence of only 2 witnesses, is yet to be recorded and the case is now listed for 20.08.2026. From the pace of the trial, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in the trial.

¶50

To comment upon the case of the prosecution, on the basis of the fact that two alleged eye witnesses, when, appeared in the witness box, have not supported the case of the prosecution, is not permissible for this Court, as the same is the prerogative of the learned trial Court.

¶51

Moreover, discussing the evidentiary value of the witnesses, examined, in this case, would amount to pre- judging the case of the prosecution, which is not permissible under the law. Hence, at this stage, this Court cannot give the findings with regard to the fact that the accused applicant has not committed the offence for which, he has been arrested, nor, it is possible for this Court to give findings with regard to the fact,

¶52

( 2026:HHC:27527 )

¶53

that in case, the applicant is released, on bail, he may not commit any offence.

¶54

So far as the delay in the trial is concerned, there are 14 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 12 have been examined, the evidence of only 2 witnesses, is yet to be recorded and the case is now listed for 20.08.2026. The applicant is in judicial custody since 10.01.2024 and considering the pace of the trial, it cannot be said that there is undue delay in the trial.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is not able to make out a case, for grant of bail, in this case. As such, the present application is dismissed.

¶56

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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.

¶57

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶58

July 08, 2026 (subhash sharma)

Ludar Chand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ludar Chand 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

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Jan Dei and Others

Hem Raj and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indu Bala and Others

Sh. Rajesh Vs Kushal Singh

Shriram General Insurance Company Vs Sukh Ram(Deceased through Lr's) and Ors.

Padma Devi and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kapoor