The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that where commercial quantity of contraband is involved, Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 imposes strict statutory conditions on grant of bail, and the foreign nationality of the accused with risk of flight further militates against release. The decision affirms prevailing standards, reinforcing that such rigors remain binding authority for all subordinate courts in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, regardless of trial stage.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMPM/1888/2025 of DAMBER BOHRA Vs State of HP |
| CNR | HPHC010471192025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal law—Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) |
| Questions of Law | Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act rigors to grant of bail, especially for foreign national accused in commercial quantity cases and when trial is nearing completion. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The incident took place on 11.07.2024. The petitioner, a Nepali national, has been in judicial custody since being apprehended on the same date. Charges have been framed, the case is listed for prosecution evidence, with dates fixed for witness examination. The quantity involved is admitted as commercial. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Forums dealing with NDPS Act bail where commercial quantity is involved |
| Follows | Strict application of Section 37 of NDPS Act on commercial quantity cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Section 37 NDPS Act applies with full rigour to bail applications where commercial quantity is established.
- The accused’s status as a foreign national increases denial-of-bail risk due to possibility of flight.
- Proximity of trial completion does not lessen applicability of strict statutory restrictions under Section 37.
- Lawyers must demonstrate satisfaction of both prongs of Section 37 NDPS (court’s satisfaction re: reasonable grounds for innocence & likelihood of non-offence repetition) even when trial is at advanced stage.
- Practical precedent for opposing/defending bail in NDPS commercial quantity matters, especially involving non-Indian nationals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that the contraband involved was of commercial quantity.
- By operation of law, the “rigors” of Section 37 NDPS Act were invoked, requiring the Court to strictly examine the statutory bars to bail.
- The petitioner was a Nepali citizen; the Court regarded this as significant for “flight risk.”
- The learned Additional Advocate General for the State highlighted that charges were framed and the trial was nearing completion, with prosecution witnesses scheduled.
- Despite the proximity to conclusion of trial, the Court held that Section 37’s restrictions remain undiluted and have to be applied in full measure.
- Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed on statutory and factual grounds.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought bail (detailed grounds not specified in the judgment excerpt).
Respondent (State)
- Highlighted that charges had been framed and trial was at the evidence stage.
- Indicated that petitioner was a foreign national, raising concerns over flight risk.
- Emphasized that commercial quantity was involved and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act therefore apply.
Factual Background
The case arises from an incident dated 11.07.2024 in which the petitioner, a Nepali national, was apprehended and has remained in judicial custody since that date. The prosecution involves commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act. Charges have been framed, and the case is scheduled for recording of prosecution evidence with three witnesses to be examined, indicating that the trial is at an advanced stage.
Statutory Analysis
- The principal statutory provision analyzed and applied is Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- The Court affirmed the strict, restrictive conditions imposed by Section 37 concerning grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities.
- No narrowing, reading down or reading-in applied; rather, the Court applied the provision’s literal and prevailing interpretation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules, innovations, or directions were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly applies established standards for Section 37 NDPS Act and does not overturn or innovate on the law.