Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suraj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 July, 2026
( 2026:HHC:28528 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 531 of 2026
Reserved on.: 10.07.2026
Announced on: 14.07.2026
.
____________________________________________________________
Suraj Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
Coram:
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
rt
For the petitioner: Mr. Dixit Sahotra & Ms. Kalaunta
Devi, Advocate(s) vice Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Deputy Advocate
General, for the Respondent.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Bail petitioner [Suraj Kumar], being in custody
since 06.03.2024, has come up before this Court,
seeking bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS)
originating from FIR No. 33 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024,
registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba,
[H.P.], under Section 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-2- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS
Act).
FACTUAL MATRIX:
.
2. Case set up by Learned Counsel Mr. Dikshit
Kumar, who was assisted by Ms. Kalunta Devi is that
on 6.3.2024, the police party laid a Naka at Police Check
Post Tunnuhatti and while they were checking the vehicles
of
at about 11.30 a.m, an HRTC bus bearing registration
No. HP-73-2697 enroute Chamba to Pathankot came
rt
from BaniKhet side was signalled to stop by the police.
During checking three persons were found sitting on
seat No. 40, 41 and 42 in the said bus and the petitioner-
accused was sitting on seat No. 41. During checking
the petitioner Suraj Kumar opened the bag and alleged
contraband was found inside the bag, which was found
to be Charas/Cannabis. On weighing, the alleged
contraband was found to be 1 kg. 126 grams. After
completing the codal formalities, Rukka was sent, which
led to registration of F.I.R against the bail petitioner and
two other accused, namely, Pawan Kumar and Jitender
Singh.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-3- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
2(i). It is averred that the bail petitioner is
innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in
the F.I.R. It is averred that the police has completed
.
the Investigation and Challan has been filed before
the Special Judge, Chamba. It is averred that the
prosecution intended to examine 22 PWs, out of which
16 PWs have been examined till day [ i.e. date of filing
of
of instant bail petition on 31.3.2026] It is averred that
the petitioner is not at fault for delay in trial.
It is
rt
averred that the prolonged incarceration has
violated the personal liberty of the petitioner as enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2(ii). It is averred that the bail petitioner had filed
an application for bail before the Learned Special
Judge, Chamba bearing Bail Application No. 115/2025,
which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.07.2025
[Annexure P-2]; and second bail application was filed
before Learned Special Judge, Chamba registered as
Bail Application No. 129 of 2025 which was dismissed
as withdrawn on 7.8.2025 [Annexure P-3]. The third bail
application was filed before this Court as Cr.MP(M) No.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-4- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
2359 of 2025, which was also dismissed as withdrawn
on 23.12.2025 [Annexure P-4] and the petitioner again
filed a bail application No. 63 of 2026 before Learned
.
Special Judge, Chamba, which was dismissed on
11.03.2026 [Annexure P-5].
2(iii). It is averred that the prosecution had not
complied with the mandatory safeguard under the NDPS
of
Act as no option of his search was given. It is averred
that the statements of PWs are inconsistent and
rt
contradictory and some material witnesses have turned
hostile which weakens the prosecution case. It is averred
that the bail petitioner is in custody for about two
years and prolonging the incarceration is violative of
Article 21 and the mandate of the judgements referred
to in Para 10 of the bail petition. It is averred that the
bail petitioner belongs to a respectful family and petitioner
has undertaken to abide by all terms and conditions
as may be imposed by this Court. Bail petitioner has
undertaken that in the event of grant of bail, he would
not jump over the bail and will not tamper the
prosecution evidence in any manner. It is averred
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-5- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
that the another co-accused, namely, Pawan Kumar
has been granted bail in Cr.MP(M) No. 596 of 2025
on 4.7.2025 [Annexure P-7] and therefore on the principle
.
of parity, the petitioner deserves to similar treatment.
It is averred that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents. It is averred that there is no evidence to
connect the bail petitioner with the offence in question.
of
In this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the
bail application through his father Shri Balbir Kumar,
rt
with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
3. Instant bail application, Cr.MP(M) No. 531 of
2026 was listed before this Court on 10.04.2026, when
for the non-availability of Learned original Counsel and
on prayer of Learned vice Counsel, the matter was
adjourned for 30.04.2026. Upon listing of the matter
on 30.04.2026, again a prayer for adjournment was
made due to non-availability of the original counsel
who was stated to be contesting election to the Bar
Council of Himachal Pradesh and accordingly the matter
was adjourned for 15.05.2026. The matter was again
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-6- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
listed on 15.05.2026 when, on the request of the vice
counsel appearing for the petitioner the matter was
again adjourned for non-availability of the original counsel
.
on account of personal exigencies and the matter was
posted for 5.6.2026. Instant bail application was listed
on 5.6.2026, when, the original counsel appeared but
prayed for an adjournment and accordingly the matter
of
was adjourned for 19.06.2026. Upon listing of the matter
on 19.06.2026, Learned vice counsel prayed for an
rt
adjournment and, as prayed, the matter was adjourned
for 10.07.2026. Upon listing of matter today [on
10.07.2026] Learned vice counsel(s) appeared for the
petitioner and addressed the arguments.
4. Per contra, the claim for bail was vehemently
opposed by Mr. J.S.Guleria, Learned Deputy Advocate
General for the Respondent-State.
5. Heard, Mr. Dixit Sahotra Advocate assisted by
Ms. Kalaunta Devi, Learned Vice Counsel(s) for the
petitioner and Mr. J.S.Guleria, Learned Deputy Advocate
General for the Respondent-State.
MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL IN GENERAL:
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-7- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
6. In general, the broad parameters regulating
the claim for bail have been spelt out in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
.
565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh
Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus
Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated
of
in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement,
(2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT
rt
Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani
(2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus
Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail is to be
granted where the allegations are frivolous or groundless
and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable
grounds exists to believe or point towards the accusation.
However, depending upon the facts of each case, the
bail can be refused, in case, prima facie case or
reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious.
Severity of punishment, including reasonable apprehension
of fleeing away from investigation and trial; and the
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-8- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
character; past antecedents; behavior; means; position
and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being
repeated; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
.
influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession
of bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus Directorate
of
of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the
claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without
rt
delving into the evidence on merits, but by forming a
prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in light of broad-
parameters referred to above.
MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL INVOLVING
COMMERCIAL QUANTITY OF CONTRABAND
UNDER NDPS :
7. In NDPS matters, while dealing with the
claim for bail involving commercial quantity, the
Court has to bear in mind that the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature
and the sine qua non for granting bail to an accused
involved in such offences is to grant an opportunity
to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
-9- ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
release and a Court has to record its satisfaction
on twin conditions, firstly, that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that an accused is not guilty of
.
the alleged offence and secondly, the accused is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail as
per the mandate of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs
of
Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673; and by Three Judge
Bench in NCB vs Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC
374; Union
rt of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh alias
Pappu 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346; Narcotics Control
Bureau vs Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372; and in State
of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo and another (2024)
15 SCC 36; State of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Singh @
Gora 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 and recording of
such satisfaction, on twin aspects, by a Court, is not
a mere formality but a mandatory pre-condition and
without recording its satisfaction, the claim for bail
cannot sustain; and even though the right to speedy
trial rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution is
undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right yet while
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
dealing with claim for bail under special enactment
such as the NDPS Act, particularly where the recovery
is of commercial quantity, the said right under Article
.
21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37
and the constitutional right under Article 21 and the
special provision of law under Section 37 NDPS Act are
to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition
of
to each other; and the aforesaid principle has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent
judgement
rtin the case of State of Punjab vs Balraj
Singh alias Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058.
ANALYSIS:
8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts
and circumstances and the material on record and
the submissions made by Learned Vice Counsel(s) for
the petitioner and Learned State Counsel, this Court
is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner
[Suraj Kumar], is not entitled to be enlarged on bail,
in the instant case, at this stage, for the following
reasons:
SATISFACTION OF COURT ON TWIN CONDITIONS
OF SECTION 37(1)(B) OF THE NDPS ACT:
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
9. For appreciating the claim of the petitioner,
it is necessary to have a recap of the mandate of Section
37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:
.
37. Offences to be cognizable 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 cognizable;
of
(b) no person accused of an offence
punishable for offences under section 19 or
section 24 or section 27A and also for offences
rt involving commercial quantity shall be
released on bail or on 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 are reasonable grounds for believingthat he is not guilty of such offence and that
he is not likely to commit any offence while onbail.
(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.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
- 12 - ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
9(i). In the backdrop of the statutory provisions
of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, this Court proceeds
to analyse the claim of the petitioner in the instant
.
case hereinafter:
[A]. NO REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST THAT
PETITIONER NOT GUILTY:
9(i.a). Based on the mandate of Section 37(1)(b)
of the NDPS Act, Learned Vice Counsel(s) for the
of
petitioner have not been able to establish thatreasonable rt grounds exist for believing that the bail
petitioner [Suraj Kumar] is not guilty of the offence,
in question, in instant case.
9(i.b). Per contra, Learned State Counsel Mr. J. S.
Guleria has opposed the claim for bail on the ground
that the material on record negates the claim of the
bail petitioner. Material on record reveals that
reasonable grounds exist to believe that the bail
petitioner is guilty of the offence, in view of the fact that
the alleged bag containing contraband was found by
police from the lap of the bail petitioner [Suraj Kumar]
and aforesaid bag was opened by bail petitioner
[Suraj Kumar] in which the alleged contraband containing
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 13 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
1 kg. 126 grams of Cannabis was found to have been
wrapped in a polythene bag. Learned State Counsel
points out that commercial quantity of contraband
.
i.e. Charas-Cannabis was recovered from the bail
petitioner who was travelling alongwith other co-accused,
namely, Pawan Kumar and Jitender Singh.
9(i.c). In rebuttal, Learned Counsel(s) for the
of
petitioner have not placed anything on record to assert
and establish that the bail petitioner was not guilty of
the
rt
offence. Nothing has been placed on record to
establish and assert, at this stage, that the recovery
of alleged contraband was not effected from the bail
petitioner.
In these circumstances, once the recovery
of alleged contraband was prima facie found from the
bag kept by the bail petitioner [Suraj Kumar] in his lap
and said bag was opened by him, on being asked by
the police and the bag contained contraband, therefore,
this Court is satisfied that the bail petitioner is guilty
of the offence and the Counsel(s) for the petitioner have
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
failed to assert and establish, at this stage, that the
bail petitioner is not guilty of the offence in question.
[B] PETITIONER LIKELY TO COMMIT ANY OFFENCE
WHILE ON BAIL:
.
10. Learned Vice Counsel(s) have not been able
to establish that in case of release the bail petitioner is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Per contra, Learned State Counsel opposes
of
the claim with the submission that once the bail
petitioner had
rt actively been involved in possessing,
transporting and carrying the alleged contraband containing
[Cannabis/Charas] and that too of a commercial quantity,
which is punishable for a maximum of 20 years, then,
there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner may
indulge in an offence even after release on bail.
Based on the discussion made in Paras 9 and
10 [supra] and in facts of instant case, this Court is
satisfied that no reasonable grounds exist for believing
that the bail petitioner [Suraj Kumar] is not guilty of the
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
after release on bail. Conversely, the material on record
goes on to prima-facie establish, at this stage, that the
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 15 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
bail petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence as the
bail petitioner had kept the bag in his lap and aforesaid
bag was opened by the bail petitioner in the presence of
.
police, which contained commercial quantity of contraband
and therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is
satisfied that the bail petitioner is guilty of the offence
and is likely to commit any offence in case of release
of
on bail. Accordingly, upon analyzing the claim on twin
pre-conditions Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS and the declaration
rt
of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of in
B. Ramu, Kashif, Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Sukhwinder
Singh @ Gora, Balraj Singh [infra] no case for bail is
made out and the claim is turned down.
PLEA THAT INVESTIGATION COMPLETED,
CHARGE SHEET FILED NO GROUND FOR BAIL:
11. While dealing with the claim for bail the plea
of an accused that since the investigation stands
completed and chargesheet has been filed cannot be
a ground for acceding to the prayer for bail, when
as per Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, twin requirements
establish that the petitioner was guilty of the recovery
of commercial quantity of contraband in terms of the
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State by the
Inspector of Police versus B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 4073, in the following terms:
.
9. A plain reading of statutory provision
makes it abundantly clear that in the
event, the Public Prosecutor opposes theprayer for bail either regular or
anticipatory, as the case may be, the
Court would have to record a satisfactionof
that there are grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of the offence
rt alleged and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.
12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case
involving recovery of commercial quantity
of narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, the Court would have to
mandatorily record the satisfaction in
terms of the rider contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
14. The fact that after investigation, the
charge-sheet has been filed against the
respondent-accused along with other
accused persons, fortifies the plea of the
State counsel that the Court could not
have recorded a satisfaction that the
accused was prima facie not guilty of the
offences alleged.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
- 17 - ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
12. Claim of an accused for bail was negated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by mandating that
the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted
.
keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Act, as
also the impact on the society as a whole with the
further mandate that the provisions of the Act have to
be interpreted literally and not liberally which may
of
ultimately frustrate the object and preamble of the Act.
While considering the application for bail regarding
rt
all satisfaction by the Court with respect to Section 37
of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature as outlined
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control
Bureau versus Kashif, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848
in the following terms:
39. The upshot of the above discussion may
be summarized as under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are
required to be interpreted keeping in mindthe 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.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
- 18 - ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
(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
of
disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure
the early disposal of the seized contraband
rt 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.
MANDATE OF SECTION CANNOT BE DISPENSED
WITH:
13. Claim of an accused for bail, who was in
custody for one year and four months, was negated
on the ground that mere prolongation of custody cannot
be a ground to dispense with the mandatory requirement
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when, the recovery was
of Commercial Quantity of contraband for which the
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
accused was punishable with 10 to 20 years of rigorous
imprisonment and thus the prolongation of custody cannot
be held to be unreasonable in terms of the mandate of
.
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India versus
Namdeo Ashruba Nakade 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049,
in the following terms:
11. In the present case, this Court finds that
of
though the Respondent-accused was in
custody for one year four months and
charges have not been framed, yet the
rt allegations are serious inasmuch as not
only is the recovery much in excess of thecommercial quantity but the Respondent-
accused allegedly got the cavities
ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to
conceal the contraband.
12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion
that the Respondent-accused is involved
in drug trafficking in an organized
manner. Consequently, no case for
dispensing with mandatory requirement of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in
the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as
the accused has been charged with
offences punishable with ten to twenty
years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 20 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
said that the Respondent has been
incarcerated for an unreasonably long
time.
15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
.
allowed and the impugned order dated
11.03.2025 passed by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Criminal
Petition No. 727 of 2025 is set aside. The
Respondent-accused is directed to
surrender within a period of two weeks.
of
RIGHT OF SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 21 AND
PROLONGED INCARCERATION TO BE EXERCISED
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SECTION 37:
rt
14. Learned State Counsel who has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail, states that the right to a
speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
must be exercised within the framework of Section 37
of the NDPS Act and mere delay in trial cannot override
or dilute the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The contention has force, in view of the mandate of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab
versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 671 in the following terms:
9. It is well-settled that in matters
involving recovery of contraband in
commercial quantity, the twin conditions::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
under Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the
NDPS Act are mandatory and entail
no relaxation merely on the ground
that the accused has undergone prolonged.
incarceration during the pendency of
trial. The provision casts upon the Court
a duty to record, before enlarging an
accused on bail, its satisfaction on two
cumulative conditions, first, that there
exist reasonable grounds for believing that
of
the accused is not guilty of the offence
charged; and second, that he is not likely
rt to commit any offence while on bail.
The recording of such satisfaction is
not a mere formality but a mandatory
pre-condition, the non-observance of
which vitiates the grant of bail. This
Court, in Kashif (supra), has held in
no uncertain terms that the recording
of satisfaction on the twin conditions
under Section 37 is mandatory and
not merely directory, and that an
order granting bail without
such recorded satisfaction stands
vitiated and cannot be sustained.
The same view stands reiterated
in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra).
10. The impugned order, on its own
showing, does not record the
satisfaction mandated under Section 37
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
(1) (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act. Far from
recording such satisfaction, the High
Court has gone on to observe that ‘the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
.
can be diluted bearing in mind the right
to a speedy trial.’ Such an approach
is plainly contrary to the settled law
laid down by this Court and deserves
to be set aside on this ground alone.
The right to speedy trial, rooted
of
in Article 21 of the Constitution, is
undoubtedly a precious Constitutional
right. That said, in matters governed
rt
by a special enactment such as the NDPS
Act, particularly where the recovery is
of commercial quantity, the said right
under Article 21 must be exercised
within the framework of Section 37
and cannot be pressed into service solely
on the ground of delay to override it.
The constitutional right under Article
21 and the special provision of law
under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be
read harmoniously and not placed
in opposition to each other. The High
Court, by failing to record its satisfaction
on the twin conditions under Section
37, has in this Court’s view, committed
an error.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
- 23 - ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
15 While negating the claim for bail where claim
of the respondent-accused merely on the basis of
having undergone one year and seven months of
.
detention when, the maximum sentence of 20 years
was prescribed in case of offence relating to Commercial
Quantity of contraband the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
mandated that mere prolonged incarceration cannot be
of
uniform ground for the grant for bail, when, no case for
bail was made out under Section 37 of the NDPS Act with
rt
the further mandate that in case of conflict between
the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, the
sovereignty of the country shall prevail, as the supply
of drugs vitally affects the national economy and health
of the people as outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in State of Punjab versus Balraj Singh alias Billas
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, in the following terms:
18. Upon consideration of the case of the
respondent against the twin conditions
laid down in Section 37, we are of the view
that no case for bail is made out. There
are antecedents involving commission of
offences of the very same nature under
the NDPS Act, therefore it cannot be said::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
that he is not likely to commit such an
offence while on bail.
19. Moreover, the respondent has only
undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found.
guilty a maximum sentence of twenty
years may be imposed upon him.
Therefore, it cannot be said that he has
suffered incarceration for a long period,
warranting interference in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
of
20. While this Court has recognized on several
rt occasions that prolonged incarceration
warrants the grant of bail in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution, we have
noticed that the application thereof is not
uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt that
what constitutes “prolonged incarceration”
for the purposes of bail, has not been
expounded by this Court or the law of theland.
22. However, we note that recently this Court
in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi Crl.A @ SLP(Crl.) No. 2867 of2026 has referred the question concerning
the approach of constitutional Courts in
bail matters under special statutes, where
“Article 21, prolonged incarceration and
statutory restrictions intersect”. In view of
the said reference, we do not wish to::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
deliberate on this issue further, save and
except that in our view paramount
consideration is nothing but interest of
justice for all. Should there be any conflict.
between the sovereignty of country and
personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former
shall prevail, particularly, when a war iswaged against the nation, be it in the form
of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the
national economy and health of theof
people.
Based on the factual matrix and the mandate
rt
of law as outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inB. Ramu, Kashif, Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Sukhwinder
Singh @ Gora, Balraj Singh @ Billas and in facts of
instant case, once the recovery of contraband was made
by the police from the bag which was kept in his lap
by the petitioner [Suraj Kumar] and the aforesaid Suraj
Kumar had opened the bag in the presence of the police
revealing the alleged contraband and contraband in
question relates to a commercial quantity weighing 1 kg.
126 grams of Charas/Cannabis and the bail petitioner
has not been able to satisfy that he was not guilty of
the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
while on bail, then, mere prolongation of incarceration
cannot be the sole ground for acceding to the prayer
for in instant case.
.
CLAIM FOR BAIL ON PARITY NOT TENABLE
ON FACTS:
16. Learned Vice Counsel(s) appearing for the
petitioner had claimed parity by placing reliance on the
order passed by this Court, in the case of Pawan
of
Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.MP(M)No.596 ofrt 2025] to assert that once the co-accused
has been released on bail, then, on the principle of
parity similar concession should be given to the petitioner.
On perusal of the orders passed in the case
of Pawan Kumar [supra], this Court is of the considered
view that the case of present bail petitioner [Suraj Kumar]
is not at par with Pawan Kumar co-accused, for the
reason, that in the case of Pawan Kumar no such
recovery of contraband was made from him. On the
other hand, prima facie the material on record indicates
that recovery was made from the bag being kept in
his lap by the petitioner Suraj Kumar which was
also opened by him in presence of the police on the said
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
day. In these circumstances, once the role of the
bail petitioner Suraj Kumar is at variance with the
role of co-accused Pawan Kumar, therefore, parity is
.
not made out and the claim is devoid of any merits.
PLEA FOR BAIL DUE TO DELAYED TRIAL NOT
TENABLE IN INSTANT CASE:
17. Learned Vice Counsel(s) by referring to Para
5 of the bail petition submits that prosecution intended
of
to examine 22 witnesses whereas 16 PWs had beenexamined and once the trial was delayed without any
rt
fault attributable to the bail petitioner, then, the claimmay be accepted.
Above contention of the Learned Counsel for
the bail petitioner is disputed by Learned State Counsel
who points out that the prosecution evidence stand closed
by Learned Special Judge Chamba on 23.06.2026
[Order taken on record] and the matter has been fixed
for recording the statement of the accused Suraj Kumar
and others, under Section 313 Cr.P.C [now Section 351
of BNSS] on 9.7.2026, which has now been posted
for 17.7.2026, revealing that the trial is at an
advanced stage and is nearing completion and there
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
is likelihood of the conclusion of trial within next
couple of months, therefore, the claim for bail cannot
be accepted and the same is turned down.
.
PLEA FOR BAIL BASED ON INCONSISTENT AND
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS OF PWS
UNTENABLE:
18. Based on the submissions in Para 9 of the
bail application, Learned Vice Counsel submits that
of
the evidence of PWs recorded during the trial areinconsistent and contradictory and therefore, the
rt
petitioner may be released on bail.
The above plea cannot be acceded to, at this
stage for the reason that, firstly, nothing has been placed
on record to assert and establish glaring inconsistency
and contradictions in the statements of PWs led before
the Trial Court; and secondly, evaluation of evidence
primarily falls within the domain of the Trial Court
[Learned Special Judge] and resorting to assessment
of evidence [though nothing placed on record] and giving
any observation or findings shall prejudice the rights of
either of the parties to the pending trial, which is
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 29 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
nearing conclusion. In these circumstances, the plea
of the petitioner is turned down.
CONCLUSION:
.
19. In the instant case as discussed above, the
plea of the petitioner for bail cannot sustain for the
reason, that firstly there are no reasonable grounds
to believe that the bail petitioner is not guilty of
of
the offence and is not likely to commit any offencewhile on bail; and secondly, the material on record
rt
reveals reasonable grounds exist to believe that thebail petitioner is guilty of the offence in question;
and thirdly, material on record indicates that
Commercial Quantity of contraband was recovered
from the bag kept in the lap by the bail petitioner
[Suraj Kumar] which was opened by the petitioner
Suraj Kumar in the presence of the police on said
day; and fourthly, the trial is likely to conclude shortly
as prosecution evidence stands closed on 23.06.2026
and the matter was thereafter listed for recording
the statement of the accused under Section 313
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
Cr.P.C. [Section 351 of BNSS] for 17.07.2026; and
fifthly, nothing cogent and convincing material has
been placed on record to assert and establish, at
.
this stage, that the bail petitioner is not guilty of
the offence or that the recovery of contraband was
not affected by the police from the petitioner
[Suraj Kumar]; and sixthly, the claim for parity with
of
co-accused, namely, Pawan Kumar is not tenable, in
view of fact, that the role of the bail petitioner who
rt
was actively involved in possessing, transporting
and carrying the alleged contraband in bag kept
in his lap which was opened by him from
which contraband was recovered is entirely at variance
or different to the role of Pawan Kumar from whom
nothing was recovered disentitles the petitioner for bail
by involving parity; and seventhly, the right of speedy
trial under Article 21 in NDPS has to be read
harmoniously in the context of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act and once the twin conditions of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are not satisfied and nothing has been placed
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
on record to show that the bail petitioner was not guilty
of the offence, therefore, the claim for enlargement of
bail, is devoid of any merit, in the peculiar facts situation
.
and the circumstances of instant case, as discussed
hereinabove.
DIRECTIONS:
20. Taking into account the entirety of the
of
facts and the material on record and for thereasons recorded hereinabove, and in peculiar facts
rt
of the instant case, the accusation against thepetitioner is prima-facie made out and the claim
of the petitioner [Suraj Kumar] being devoid of any merit
and the same is dismissed.
21. Observations made in this judgment shall
not be construed in any manner as an indictive of
findings, for or against the parties herein, either for
the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall
proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any
of the observations contained hereinabove.
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
- 32 - ( 2026:HHC:28528 )
In aforesaid terms, the instant petition
and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall accordingly, stand disposed of.
.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
14th July, 2026
( tm)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 14/07/2026 20:33:57 :::CIS
