The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that in commercial quantity NDPS Act cases, bail cannot be granted without strict compliance with the twin conditions of Section 37, regardless of asserted trial delays or alleged violation of the right to speedy trial—unless delay is sufficiently established. The ruling upholds existing Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMPM/1999/2025 of KAMLESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010495742025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court rulings on Section 37 NDPS Act |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), Bail Jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law | Whether delay in trial or right to speedy trial alone can override the twin conditions under Section 37 for grant of bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases cannot be granted unless the two mandatory conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied:
The assertion of delay in trial, unless meaningfully demonstrated, does not by itself justify bail when Section 37 applies. The Supreme Court’s consistent interpretation that the “reasonable grounds” mean something more than prima facie, and the conditions are cumulative, not alternative, was reaffirmed. Alleged violations of the right to speedy trial must be clearly substantiated by the record. The court found no such violation in this case, as trial scheduling indicated judicial diligence. The petition was dismissed accordingly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Detailed references to multiple Supreme Court judgments clarifying the strict nature of bail under Section 37, definitions of “conscious possession”, interpretation of “reasonable grounds to believe”, and upholding cumulative requirements of the twin conditions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was an occupant of a vehicle from which 2.18 kg of charas (commercial quantity) was recovered during police search. Petitioner had been in custody for over a year. He alleged delay in trial and violation of right to speedy trial. The prosecution cited vehicle search with independent witnesses, recovery of contraband, and pending progress before the trial court with consecutive dates fixed for witness examination. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states; Supreme Court (particularly in cases with similar facts or Section 37 NDPS Act interpretation) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that in commercial quantity NDPS cases, bail cannot be granted unless both Section 37(1)(b)(ii) conditions are met—even where right to speedy trial is alleged.
- Clearly states that mere assertion of trial delay, without concrete record of inordinate delay not caused by the accused, will not suffice to override the Section 37 bar.
- Emphasizes that the twin conditions are cumulative: both “not guilty” and “not likely to reoffend” must be clearly made out for bail.
- Places burden on the accused to show violation of the right to speedy trial through specific facts, not generic claims.
- Lawyers should meticulously document trial progress and delay causes when invoking the right to speedy trial in bail petitions under special statutes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by analyzing the factual circumstances and the nature of recovery, relying primarily on evidence of 2.18 kg charas found from the vehicle where the petitioner was a passenger.
- The court referred to Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025) and a line of other Supreme Court authorities to lay out the general parameters for grant of bail and emphasized that the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and possibility of tampering or absconding are always relevant.
- The key legal discussion centered around Section 37 NDPS Act, summarizing the statutory twin conditions for bail—citing Niyazuddin, Rajesh, Mohd. Nawaz Khan, Ajay Kumar Singh, and Lalrintluanga Sailo for their reiteration that bail for commercial quantity offences requires judicial satisfaction of both non-guilt and non-repeat-offence.
- The court interpreted “reasonable grounds” as requiring more than a prima facie case—substantial, probable cause for acquittal must be demonstrable at the bail stage.
- On “conscious possession,” the court relied on Madan Lal v. State of HP, holding that all occupants of a vehicle can be deemed in conscious possession if facts so warrant.
- Evaluating the right to speedy trial, the court scrutinized the order sheets and found delays were not attributable to the prosecution, but at least partly to adjournments sought by the defence, and that the trial court was actively scheduling timely hearings.
- The court concluded that absent satisfaction of Section 37’s twin conditions and in light of the existing material, bail could not be granted, and assertions of delay were not borne out.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted innocence and claimed false implication.
- Alleged an undue delay in trial progress violating the right to speedy trial.
- Sought regular bail on the above grounds.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed bail citing recovery of commercial quantity charas.
- Invoked strict application of Section 37’s twin conditions, arguing they were not satisfied.
- Cited lack of sufficient grounds showing that petitioner would not reoffend or was not guilty.
Factual Background
The case arose from an incident on 03.06.2024 where the police intercepted a vehicle at Chathmi bridge, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner, along with two others, was inside the vehicle from which 2.18 kg of charas was recovered in the presence of independent witnesses. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year. The bail petition was argued on the grounds of delay in trial and alleged infringement of the right to speedy trial, while the prosecution cited active trial scheduling and invoked Section 37 NDPS Act.
Statutory Analysis
- The court provided a detailed textual and interpretative analysis of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring satisfaction of both the twin conditions (reasonable grounds for belief of not guilty and not likely to reoffend) for bail in commercial quantity cases.
- Referred to the statutory presumption of conscious possession under Section 35 and 54 NDPS Act, and the heightened requirements for bail in NDPS cases.
- Interpreted “reasonable grounds” as stronger than mere prima facie grounds, adopting the Supreme Court’s consistent stance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.