inkinccorporation@gmail.com Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 23.02.2026 vs Of on 27 February, 2026
2026:HHC:4649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 142 of 2026
.
Reserved on: 23.02.2026
Date of Decision: 27.02.2026.
Mahender Pun ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
rt
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr Maan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 20 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024,
registered at Police Station Manikaran at Kasol, District Kullu,
H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections
20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:4649
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
petitioner and the co-accused Daleep Budhha were found
.
moving together on 08.11.2024. The police intercepted them and
recovered 1.599 kgs of charas from the backpack being carried
by co-accused Daleep Budhha. The petitioner is not concerned
with the charas recovered by the police. The petitioner has been
of
in custody since 08.11.2024. The allegations in the FIR do not
satisfy the ingredients of the commission of offences punishable
rt
under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. No
fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in
custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be
allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police had set up a naka at Hurlu Dhaar on
08.11.2024 at about 5:10 am. Two people came towards the
police, who returned after seeing the police. The police became
suspicious and apprehended them. One person, identified as
Daleep Budhha, was carrying a backpack. The petitioner was
accompanying him. The police checked the backpack and
recovered 1599 grams of charas. The police seized the charas
and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The charas was
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:4649
sent to the SFSL, Junga and as per the report of analysis, it was
confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas.
.
The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 27.01.2025. The
matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution
witnesses on 22.04.2026. Statements of two witnesses have been
recorded. Hence, the status report.
of
4. I have heard Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the
rt
petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
5. Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely
implicated. There is no material against him. The recovery was
effected from the co-accused and not the petitioner. The police
have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed
that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be
released on bail.
6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was
accompanying the co-accused at odd hours. He has not
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:4649
furnished any explanation for his presence, and a prima facie
conclusion regarding the petitioner abetting the possession can
.
be drawn at this stage. The quantity of charas recovered by the
police is more than a commercial quantity, and the rigours of
Section 37 of NDPS apply to the present case. The petitioner has
not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of
of
the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed
that the present petition be dismissed.
rt
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC
768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page
783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,
the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of
the accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if
the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
52026:HHC:4649
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P..
[Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC
(Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
[Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528:
2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v.
State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368];
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCCof
(Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil
Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
rt
425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the
accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directlyrelated to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empowered
to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” forthe grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a)
CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the
need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the
presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the
accused is not misused to impede the investigation,
overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.
The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses
the expression “any condition … otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several
decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
62026:HHC:4649
empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any
condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and
439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided.
by the need to facilitate the administration of justice,
secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the
liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the
investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct thecourse of justice. Several decisions of this Court have
dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can
legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail andof
anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC
570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the
Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and
rt
observed in the following terms: —
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provisionshould not be regarded as conferring absolute power
on a court of law to impose any condition that it
chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted asa reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible
in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense,
and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are ofthe view that the present facts and circumstances of
the case do not warrant such an extreme condition tobe imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken intoconsideration while deciding the bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to
grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail are the nature of
the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
72026:HHC:4649
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to.
the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and thecircumstances which are peculiar or the accused and
larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdictionof
to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as
a recovery agent to realise the dues of the
complainant, and that too, without any trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
rt
10. A similar view was taken in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition is to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. The status report shows that the petitioner and the
co-accused were walking together at 5:10 am. Both of them ran
away after seeing the police and were apprehended by the police.
The petitioner and the co-accused are permanent residents of
Nepal. All these circumstances, prima facie, show that the
petitioner was aware of the fact that the co-accused was
carrying the contraband in his carry bag. He has not provided
any explanation for running away after seeing the police. Thus,
there exists prima facie sufficient material to connect the
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:4649
petitioner to the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 20 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
.
13. The status report shows that the police had recovered
1.599 kgs of charas, which is a commercial quantity. Therefore,
the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present
of
case.
14. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides that in an
rt
offence involving a commercial quantity, the Court should be
satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the commission of an
offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It
reads as follows:
“37. Offences to be cognisable and non-bailable. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognisable.
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
offences under section 19, section 24, or section
27A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity, shall be released on bail or his own bond
unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for
such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
92026:HHC:4649
are reasonable grounds for believing that he
is not guilty of such an offence and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on.
bail.
(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.”
15. This Section was interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme
of
Court in Union of India Versus Niyazuddin& Another (2018) 13 SCC
738, and it was held that in the absence of the satisfaction that
rt
the accused is not guilty of an offence and he is not likely to
commit an offence while on bail, he cannot be released. It was
observed:
“7. Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special
provisions with regard to the grant of bail in respect ofcertain offences enumerated under the said Section.
They are:
(1) In the case of a person accused of an offence
punishable under Section 19,(2) Under Section 24,
(3) Under Section 27A and
(4) offences involving a commercial quantity.
8. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the
fourth factor, namely, commercial quantity. Be that as it
may, once the Public Prosecutor opposes the application
for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in case the court
proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are
to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:4649
requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any
other enactment.
(1) The court must be satisfied that there are
.
reasonable grounds for believing that the
person is not guilty of such an offence;
(2) that person is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.”
16. This position was reiterated in State of Kerala Versus
of
Rajesh, AIR 2020 SC 721, wherein it was held:
“19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be
followed while considering the application for bail moved
rt
by the accused involved in offences under the NDPS Act.
In Union of India vs Ram Samujh and Ors., (1999) 9 SCC429, it has been elaborated as under: –
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid
legislative mandate is required to be adhered to andfollowed. It should be borne in mind that in a
murder case, the accused commits the murder of
one or two persons, while those persons who aredealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in
causing death or in inflicting death-blow to anumber of innocent young victims, who are
vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a
deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard tothe society; even if they are released temporarily, in
all probability, they would continue their nefarious
activities of trafficking and/or dealing in
intoxicants clandestinely. The reason may be the
large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court,
dealing with the contention with regard to
punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly
observed about the adverse effect of such activities
in Durand Didier vs Chief Secy. Union Territory of Goa,
(1990) 1 SCC 95) as under:
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:4649
24. With deep concern, we may point out that
the organised activities of the underworld
and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic.
drugs and psychotropic substances into this
country and illegal trafficking in such drugs
and substances have led to drug addiction
among a sizeable section of the public,
particularly the adolescents and students of
both sexes and the menace has assumed
serious and alarming proportions in the
of
recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively
control and eradicate this proliferating and
booming devastating menace, causing
rt deleterious effects and a deadly impact on
society as a whole, Parliament, in its wisdom,
has made effective provisions by introducing
Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory
minimum imprisonment and fine.
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs
flooding the market, Parliament has provided that
the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act
should not be released on bail during trial unless
the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37,
namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of such offence;
and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has
not given any justifiable reason for not
abiding by the aforesaid mandate while
ordering the release of the respondent
accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take
a holistic view of the harmful socio-
economic consequences and health hazards
which would accompany trafficking illegally
in dangerous drugs, the court should
implement the law in the spirit with which
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:4649
Parliament, after due deliberation, has
amended.”
20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of
.
power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations
contained under Section 439 of the CrPC but is also
subject to the limitation placed by Section 37, which
commences with the non-obstante clause. The operative
part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing
the enlargement of bail to any person accused of the
commission of an offence under the Act unless the two
of
conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the
application, and the second is that the Court must be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
rt
that he is not guilty of such an offence. If either of these
two conditions is not satisfied, the ban on granting bail
operates.
21. 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
the existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case at
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.”
17. A similar view was taken in Union of India v. Mohd.
Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100: (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 721: 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1237, wherein it was observed at page 110:
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:4649
“21. Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the
grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24
or 27-A and also for offences involving a commercial.
quantity are:
(i) The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to
oppose the application for bail; and
(ii) There must exist “reasonable grounds to
believe” that (a) the person is not guilty of such an
offence, and (b) he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
of
22. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is
“reasonable ground to believe” that the person is not
guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of
rt
“reasonable grounds to believe”, a two-judge Bench of
this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari [Union of India v. Shiv
Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505],
held that: (SCC pp. 801-02, paras 7-8 & 10-11)
“7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is
“reasonable grounds”. The expression means
something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes
substantial probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence charged, and this
reasonable belief contemplated, in turn, points to the
existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify the recording of
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence
charged.
8. The word “reasonable” has in law the prima facie
meaning of reasonable in regard to those
circumstances of which the actor, called on to act
reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult
to give an exact definition of the word
“reasonable”.
‘7. … Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258
states that it would be unreasonable to expect an
exact definition of the word “reasonable”. Reason
varies in its conclusions according to the
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:4649
idiosyncrasies of the individual and the times and
circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning
which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now
.
like the jingling of a child’s toy.’
[See MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [MCD v. Jagan
Nath Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497], SCC p. 504,
para 7 and Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.
Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. [Gujarat Water
Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat)
(P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 532]]
of
***
10. The word “reasonable” signifies “in accordance
with reason”. In the ultimate analysis, it is a
rt
question of fact whether a particular act is
reasonable or not, which depends on the
circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal
Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd.
[Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills
Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 315]
11. The court, while considering the application for
bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act, is not
called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for
the limited purpose essentially confined to the
question of releasing the accused on bail that the
court is called upon to see if there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty
and records its satisfaction about the existence of
such grounds. But the court has not to consider the
matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of
acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High
Court and this Court are required to apply while granting
bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the accused has not committed an offence and
whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:4649
NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug
trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the
grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed.”
.
18. It was held in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 346, that bail cannot be granted without
complying with the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It
was observed:
of
4. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing
the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person
rt
accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall
be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid downtherein are satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application;
and (ii) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an
offence and that he is not likely to commit any such
offence while on bail.
15. For the sake of convenience Section 37(1) is
reproduced hereinbelow:–
“37. Offences to be cognisable and non-bailable.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall
be cognisable.
(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 be released on bail or
on his own bond unless-
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:4649
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for
such release, and
.
(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.”
16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no
person accused of an offence involving trade in a
of
commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released
on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of
rt
such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
19. It was held in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga
Sailo, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751, that the grant of bail without
considering Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. It was
observed:
“5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the
position that, in cases involving the commercial quantity
of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, while
considering the application of bail, the Court is bound toensure the satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)
(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The said provision reads thus:–
“37(1)(b)(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.”
6. While considering the cases under the NDPS Act, one
cannot be oblivious of the objects and reasons for
bringing the said enactment after repealing the then-
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:4649
existing laws relating to Narcotic drugs. The object and
reasons given in the acts themselves read thus:–
“An act to consolidate and amend the law relating to
.
narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the
control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for the
forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit trafficin narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to
implement the provisions of the International Convention
on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and forof
matters connected therewith.”
In the decision in Collector of Customs, New Delhi v.
Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549, the three-judge
rt
bench of this Court considered the provisions under
Section 37(1)(b) as also 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, with
regard to the expression “reasonable grounds” used
therein. This Court held that it means something more
than the prima facie grounds and that it contemplates
substantial and probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore,
it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the
provision would require the existence of such facts and
circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence.
As relates to the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)
(ii) of the NDPS Act, viz., that, firstly, there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of such offence and, secondly, he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail it was held therein that
they are cumulative and not alternative. Satisfaction of
the existence of those twin conditions had to be based on
the ‘reasonable grounds’, as referred to above.
7. In the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC
122, after reiterating the broad parameters laid down by
this Court to be followed while considering an application
for bail moved by an accused involved in offences under
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
18
2026:HHC:4649
the NDPS Act, in paragraph 18 thereof this Court held that
the scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would reveal
that the exercise of power to grant bail in such cases is
.
not only subject to the limitations contained under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also
subject to the limitation placed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii),
NDPS Act. Further, it was held that in case one of the two
conditions thereunder is not satisfied, the ban on
granting bail would operate.
8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
of
NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra reveal the
consistent view of this Court that while considering the
application for bail made by an accused involved in an
offence under the NDPS Act, a liberal approach ignoring
rt
the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is
impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for
granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, cannot be
avoided while passing orders on such applications.”
20. In the present case, the prosecution has collected
sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner with the
commission of the crime. There is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner would not indulge in the commission of an
offence if released on bail. Hence, he has not satisfied the twin
conditions laid down in Section 37 of the ND&PS Act.
21. It was submitted that the bail is a Rule and Jail is an
exception, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this
consideration. This submission will not help the petitioner, as
he is prima facie involved in the commission of an offence
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
19
2026:HHC:4649
punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act involving the
commercial quantity. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
.
Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848 that in cases under the NDPS Act
involving the commercial quantity, the negation of bail is the
rule and its grant an exception. It was observed at page 381:
of
“Compliance with the mandate under Section 37
9. There has been a consistent and persistent view of
rt
this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is
punishable with a minimum sentence of ten years, theaccused shall generally not be released on bail. Negation of
bail is the rule, and its grant is an exception. While consider-
ing 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 findings as man-
dated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to
the accused involved in the offences under the said Act.”
22. Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gaurav Kumar @ Jolly
vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:40799. In the cited case, the petitioner
was apprehended based on the call detail record and the
financial transaction, which were found to be insufficient. In the
present case, the petitioner was walking with the co-accused
and ran away after seeing the police. Therefore, the cited
judgment does not apply to the present case.
::: Downloaded on – 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS
20
2026:HHC:4649
23. No other point was urged.
24. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and
.
the same is dismissed.
25. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
of
bearing ,whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
rt (Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
27th February, 2026
(Nikita)
::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 20:35:45 :::CIS