STATE OF HP vs ANUJ CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:31738
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 408 of 2025 and
Cr.MP(M) No. 851 of 2025
Reserved on : 7.7.2026
Date of decision: 31.7.2026
Date of uploading : 31.7.2026
_____________________________________________________
1. Cr. Revision No. 408 of 2025
State of HP
....Petitioner
Versus
Anuj Chauhan & ors.
…Respondents
2. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 851 of 2025
Court on its own motion
...Applicant
Versus
Neeraj Zilta & anr.
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? yes
Cr. R. No. 408 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G.
For the respondents:Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur, Advocate for
respondents No.1, 5 to 7 & 20.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for
respondents No.2, 15 and 21.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
2
High Court of H.P.
Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate for
respondents No.3 and 25.
Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate for
respondents No.4 and 19.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.9.
Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent No.10.
Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent No.11.
Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate for
respondents No.12, 13 and 33.
Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No.14.
Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate for
respondent No.16.
Mr. Hariom Prakash, Advocate for
respondent No.17.
Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate for
respondents No.18, 23, 27 to 32.
Mr. Swati Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.
Bhairav Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No.24.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.26.
Cr.M.P(M) No. 851 of 2025
For the petitioner: Court on its own motion.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
3
High Court of H.P.
For the respondents:Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1.
Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2.
Virender Singh, Judge
The above titled cases are being disposed of by a
common judgment, as Cr. Revision No. 408 of 2025, has
been filed by the State of H.P., against the order dated
1.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I,
Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
trial Court’), by virtue of which, respondents have been
enlarged on bail, in FIR No. 50 of 2024, dated 19.9.2024,
under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
NDPS Act’), registered with Police Station, Kotkhai, District
Shimla, H.P., whereas, Cr.MP(M) No. 851 of 2025 has been
registered as Court has taken cognizance of the matter,
while deciding Cr. MP (M) No. 456 of 2025, titled as,
‘Deepak Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh’.
Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
4
High Court of H.P.
respondents, calling upon them, as to why, the bail granted to
them, by the learned trial Court in FIR No. 50 of 2024, dated
19.9.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, be not
canceled, which has been granted to the respondents vide order
dated 29.3.2025, in bail application Nos. 130-131 of 2025.
2. Brief facts leading to filing the present cases, before
this Court, may be summed up, as under:
2.1. On 18.09.2024, SI Mehar Chand, I.O. ANTF(FU) CID,
along with other police official, left the office in official vehicle,
bearing registration No.HP03C-5663, for patrolling duty and
duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics, towards Dhalli,
Theog, Kotkhai, Jubbal, and Kharapathar.
2.2. When, the I.O., along with other police official, was
present at a place known as Kharapathar, then, he received a
secret information regarding the fact that Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, son of Shri Mohammad Makbool, village Bhatpura, Post
Office Sunitpura, Tehsil Karolpura, District Kupwara, Jammu
and Kashmir, is travelling in a taxi No.HP01-A-5028, f rom
Shimla to Rohru and he was having large quantity of
Chitta/Heroin with him.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
5
High Court of H.P.
2.3. As per the information, he was going to Rohru, in
order to sell the same to someone and in case, the said
vehicle is intercepted and the bag of Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi is searched, then, large quantity of Chitta could be
recovered.
2.4. The said information was found to be authentic
and reliable. As per the I.O., due to paucity of time, in case,
he would have obtained search warrants, in that situation,
the possibility of removal of the contraband was there. As
such, the I.O. complied with the provisions of Section 42(2)
of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to his superior.
2.5. Thereafter, the I.O. put picketing between
Kotkhai- Kharapathar and contacted Up Pradhan, Gram
Panchayat, Darkoti Ramesh Chauhan on telephone. After
sometime, Ramesh Chauhan and Ravinder Chauhan,
reached at the spot. They were apprised about the secret
information and associated in the raiding party, as
independent witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
6
High Court of H.P.
2.6. It has also been mentioned in the status report
that at about 8.55 p.m., as per the information, taxi
No.HP01A-5028, reached on the spot from Kotkhai side.
With the help of police officials, the said vehicle was got
stopped on the side of the road and the driver and the
person, sitting on the rear seat, were apprised about the
secret information.
2.7. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as
Deepan Lal and the person, sitting on the rear seat,
disclosed his name as Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. Thereafter,
the bag, which Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was carrying, was
searched, along with vehicle. From the bag, as well as, from
the vehicle, nothing incriminating was found. This fact, was
documented.
2.8. Thereafter, the option, as per Section 50 was
given to the driver, as well as, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi,
upon which, both of them had opted to give their search to
the gazetted police officer. Thereafter, at about 12.20 a.m.,
Dy. S.P. Sidharth Sharma, SDPO, Theog, was requested to
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
7
High Court of H.P.
come to the spot, upon which, he had reached at the spot at
1.25 a.m. Meanwhile, Constable Vikrant reached at the
spot along with the receipt of the information, under Section
42(2) of the NDPS Act.
2.9. Thereafter, SDPO had inquired from Deepan Lal
and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and oral direction was given to
SI Mehar Chand to search Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. During
search, from the underwear of accused Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, a black coloured plastic envelope was found, which,
on opening, was found to be containing 468.380 grams of
Chitta/Heroin.
2.10. Apart from this, currency notes of Rs.2530/- and
Aadhar Card were also found, which were taken into
possession. In the personal search of Deepan Lal, nothing
incriminating was found. The entire process was
photographed and videographed on the spot. As such
Rukka was sent to the Police Station, for registration of the
FIR, upon which, FIR, in question was registered.
2.11. Thereafter, SI Mehar Chand, submitted the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
8
High Court of H.P.
photocopy of the information, under Section 42(2) of the
NDPS Act, memo regarding personal search of the raiding
party and official vehicle, along with carbon copy, search
memo of Taxi No.HP01A-5028 and personal bag, along with
carbon copy, consent memo, under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act, of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Dipan Lal,
along with carbon copy, memo regarding recovery of
468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, memo regarding personal
search of driver Deepan Lal, along with carbon copy, Mobile
phone marka ‘Redmi’ of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi,
by virtue of which, taxi No.HP01A-5028 Alto 800, along with
documents, was taken into possession, along with carbon
copy, photocopy of Rukka, parcel of case property,
containing 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, along with
specimen seal having impression ‘M’, one cloth parcel
containing currency notes of Rs.2530/- along with
specimen seal, zimini No.1, along with carbon copy, NCB-I
form in triplicate, along with carbon copy, Form No.1
duplicate, along with carbon copy, and other documents,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
9
High Court of H.P.
before the Incharge, Police Station, Kotkhai.
2.12. The statements of the witnesses were recorded,
under Section 180 of the BNSS. Thereafter, accused
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was interrogated and was arrested
on 19.09.2024, at about 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the case
property was deposited with MHC Police Station, Kotkhai
and the accused was medico-legally examined.
2.13. During investigation, the accused disclosed that
he is in the business of selling Chitta/Heroin, as they are
members of interstate gang, along with Shahi Mahatma. He
has further deposed that he, in connivance with Pradeep
Ranta @ Pankaj Ranta, used to bring Chitta from Delhi and
give the same to Shahi Mahatma, whereas, Shahi Mahatma,
through peddlers, used to sell the same in the Rohru area.
Sometimes, peddlers used to take Chitta from the house of
Shahi Mahatma at Pinjore. According to him, Shahi
Mahatma is doing the business from the said house/room.
2.14. Muddasir Ahmad Mochi has also disclosed that
accused Shahi Mahatma, through mobile phone location
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
10
High Court of H.P.
used to sell Chitta to the intended purchaser. Shahi
Mahatma has purchased Sim card, in the name of
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and after using his Aadhar Card
and Pan Card, got opened 2-3 Bank accounts in Kashmir
and used to get money, in those Bank accounts. Accused
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi sometimes through cheques and
sometimes through cash used to withdraw the same, and
pay the said amount to Pradeep Ranta.
2.15. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, had also
facilitated the contact of Shahi Mahatma with the smugglers
in Kashmir and they were now planning to bring Chitta
from Kashmir. On 19.09.2024, SDPO, constituted a SIT by
deputing SHO Police Station, Theog as incharge of the SIT.
2.16. It is the further case of the police, as mentioned,
in the status report, that on 20.09.2024, Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, was produced before the Court of JMFC Chopal,
Camp at Theog, from where, he was remanded to police
custody. Inventory of the case property was got prepared by
producing the same before the Court of learned Judicial
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
11
High Court of H.P.
Magistrate First Class, Chopal and samples were sent to
SFSL Junga, whereas, the remaining case property was
deposited with District Malkhana, Kaithu. On 20.09.2024,
SIT incharge, Inspector Jaswant Singh associated Shahi
Mahatma, in the investigation and he was arrested on 11.50
p.m. on that day.
2.17. During investigation, Shahi Mahatma has
disclosed that from the last 8 months, he is in the business
of selling Chitta. Harinder Manta and Pradeep Kumar @
Pankaj Ranta are also involved in the business of
distribution of Chitta and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, is
known to him for the last 5 years and all are in this
business. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Pradeep
Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, used to purchase Chitta sometimes
from Delhi and sometimes from Karnal, and hand over the
same to him in his room at Pinjore, from where, Muddasir
Ahmad Mochi, used to supply the Chitta at Rohru.
Thereafter, he used to place the Chitta at different locations
and from those locations, he used to further pass on to
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
12
High Court of H.P.
Rakesh @ Tinu, resident of Seema (Badali), Sarthak Sood
resident of Rohru, Ravinder (Motta), Naresh resident of
Bijori, Neeraj resident of Melthi and Ashu (Aate) resident of
Rohru.
2.18. The above persons, according to Shahi Mahatma,
after receiving the Chitta from different locations, used to
separate the same in small packets and sell the same
further to other persons. The persons, who used to
purchase Chitta, used to contact him and transfer the
amount in the bank account of Muddasir, which he had got
opened in Srinagar (J&K). According to him, earlier he had
used his Dhanlaxmi bank account opened with Punjab
National Bank and now he is using the bank accounts
opened in the name of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi.
2.19. Shahi Mahatma, with the help of Harinder Manta
and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, has made a syndicate
and they work, as drug peddlers and supply the same to
different locations. In lieu of that, they used to give free
Chitta to all the peddlers, for their consumption. Shahi
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
13
High Court of H.P.
Mahatma had also talked to the drugs smugglers of
Kashmir; namely Mushtaq and Javed.
2.20. On 21.09.2024, accused Shahi Mahatma, was
produced before the Court, from where, he was remanded to
police custody.
2.21. It has been mentioned, in the status report, that
on 20.09.2024, mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi,
was sent to SFSL Junga. On 23.09.2024, mobile phones of
Shahi Mahatma and his wife were also taken into
possession. Thereafter, those were sent to SFSL Junga.
Result regarding mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi,
has been received. Service provider has been requested to
provide the CDRs of mobile phones of Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, and Shahi Mahatma.
2.22. Thereafter, bank statements of accused Muddasir
Ahmad Mochi and Shahi Mahatma were obtained. Perusal
of the same shows that there are transactions of crores of
rupees in the bank accounts of above two accused persons.
Shahi Mahatma is using his vehicle, bearing registration
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
14
High Court of H.P.
HP10C-1425, and after receiving the information regarding
arrest of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, on 19.09.2024,
accused Shahi Mahatma, along with his companion Pankaj
Ranta, had tried to flee away, in the said vehicle. Pankaj
Ranta succeeded in fleeing away, whereas, accused Shahi
Mahatma was arrested by RPF.
2.23. On 16.10.2024, accused Harinder Manta, was
arrested, who, on inquiry, disclosed that he is in the habit
of consuming Chitta from the year 2020 and earlier, he
used to get Chitta from his friends, but, thereafter, he is
purchasing the same from Delhi. In the year 2022, Solan
police had arrested him for allegedly possessing 150 grams
Chitta. Again, in the year 2023, he has been arrested by
the Police, along with Chitta. Thereafter, in the month of
January/February, he has contacted Shahi Mahatma for
purchasing Chitta, upon which, Shahi Mahatma, used to
provide Chitta in Rohru.
2.24. Accused Harinder Manta, used to transfer the
amount in the Bank account of Shahi Mahatma,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
15
High Court of H.P.
maintained in ICICI Bank. Thereafter, Shahi Mahatma,
used to forward him the location, from where, he used to lift
Chitta. Thereafter, accused Shahi Mahatma had allured
him to join the business of Chitta. The said offer was
accepted and he had also joined the said business,
thereafter.
2.25. Accused Harinder Manta used to purchase Chitta
from Delhi from Nigerian national and on the directions of
Shahi Mahtma, he used to keep Chitta at a particular
location and in lieu of that, amount was paid to him in
cash. In the month of March, 2024, amount was
transferred online, but, mostly, he used to get amount in
cash. In the month of March, 2024, he had purchased 100
grams Chitta on three occasions and sold the same in the
area through Shahi Mahatma. On the basis of above facts,
accused Harinder Manta was arrested.
2.26. Thereafter, the police had obtained the statement
of bank account No.048701503074 maintained by Harinder
Manta with ICICI Bank Rohru. Perusal of the same shows
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
16
High Court of H.P.
that accused Harinder Manta, from his bank account had
transferred a sum of Rs.21,500/- to the bank account of
Shahi Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Das & Sons.
During investigation, it has been found that accused Arvind
Chauhan, has transferred a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, in the
bank account of Harinder Manta, from 18.07.2023 to
11.09.2024.
2.27. Similarly, accused Naresh had transferred a sum
of Rs.14,000/- from 05.03.2024 to 12.09.2024, in the bank
account of Harinder Manta. Apart from this, there is
withdrawal of Rs.36,69,010/- and deposit of Rs.36,67,942/-
in the bank account of Harinder Manta.
2.28. On analysis of the statement of account of
accused Shahi Mahatma and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, it
was found that there were transactions of lacs of rupees in
the bank account of Shahi Mahtama, maintained with ASP
International Bank.
2.29. Thereafter, bank account statements of Shahi
Mahatma, maintained with ASP International Bank were
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
17
High Court of H.P.
obtained and it was found that Deepak Sharma has made
transactions from his bank account, which is linked with
mobile No.93171-12131.
2.30. As per the said statement, on 22.05.2024,
Deepak Sharma has transferred a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.700/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of
Rs.800/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 04.06.2024, a sum of
Rs.500/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.15,000/- was credited in
his account.
2.31. Apart from this, in the bank account of Shahi
Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Dass & Sons, there are
transactions of Rs.5600/- on 11.09.2024 and in the Bank
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
18
High Court of H.P.
account No.7541002100001139, maintained with ASP
International Bank, on 21.02.2024, he has transferred a
sum of Rs.600/- on 21.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/-, on
14.03.2024, a sum of Rs.2000/-, on 17.04.2024, a sum of
Rs.3300/-, on 19.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3300/-, on
21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3200/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of
Rs.2900/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.300/-, on
22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.900/-, on
22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.80/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.200/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.800/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.200/-, on
17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
19
High Court of H.P.
20.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/-. Thus, he has made total
transactions worth Rs.32,680/-.
2.32. It is the further case of the Police that accused
Deepak Sharma, had made a transaction of Rs.5870/- in
the bank account of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, maintained
with Axis Bank, as such, there is total transaction of
Rs.59,150/-.
2.33. On 14.01.2025, accused Deepak Sharma was
associated, who has disclosed that he is consuming Chitta
from the year 2024. Initially, when, he has started
consuming Chitta, he used to purchase the same from local
boys; namely Naresh Kumar, Ankush. Thereafter, with his
friends and other boys of the area, he had started
purchasing Chitta, for further sale about one year ago.
Naresh, resident of Rohru, has disclosed to him about the
involvement of Shahi Mahatma. Thereafter, he has started
purchasing Chitta, from Shahi Mahatma.
2.34. It has also been mentioned, in the status report,
that in the Bank account of Deepak Sharma, there were
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
20
High Court of H.P.
transactions, from the account of accused Purskrit Verma,
of a sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on
13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 15.10.2023, a sum of
Rs.900/- on 16.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 31.10.2023,
a sum of Rs.900/- on 01.11.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on
09.12.2023, a sum of Rs.400/- on 11.12.2023, a sum of
Rs.1100/- on 14.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on
19.12.2023, a sum of Rs.700/- on 20.12.2023, a sum of
Rs.400/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 04.01.2024,
a sum of Rs.900/- on 11.01.2024, a sum of Rs.370/- on
13.01.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 13.01.2024, a sum of
Rs.1200/- on 08.02.2024, a sum of Rs.800/- on
16.02.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of
Rs.100/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/- on 26.02.2024,
a sum of Rs.200/- on 29.03.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on
10.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 10.08.2024, a sum of
Rs.1800/- on 12.08.2024, a sum of Rs.700/- on
14.08.2024, a sum of Rs.900/- on 24.08.2024.
2.35. It has further been mentioned in the status
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
21
High Court of H.P.
report that accused Jatin Thakur, has transferred a sum of
Rs.678/- on 26.08.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 24.09.2024,
a sum of Rs.2580/- on 25.09.2024. Thus, he has
transferred a total sum of Rs.3858/-.
2.36. Accused Mohit Thakur, has transferred a sum of
Rs.300/- on 07.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/- on
09.08.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 09.08.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/- on 11.08.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on
11.08.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of
Rs.3600/-.
2.37. Similarly, accused Naresh has transferred a sum
of Rs.400/- on 05.02.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on
17.02.2024, a sum of Rs.1300/- on 19.03.2024. Thus, he
has transferred a total sum of Rs.2200/-.
2.38. Similarly, accused Brij Mohan has transferred a
sum of Rs.1800/- on 19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on
19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 01.03.2024, a sum of
Rs.200/- on 01.03.2024. Thus, he has transferred a sum of
Rs.2800/-.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
22
High Court of H.P.
3. Admittedly, in the present case, the accused
persons have been named, as accused, for the commission
of offence, punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act,
involving the commercial quantity.
4. Once, it has been held that the contraband
allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused-
person falls in the category of ‘commercial quantity’, as per
the Notification issued by the Central Government, then,
the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act come into play.
5. In a recent decision, in case, titled as Narcotics
Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal, reported in AIR
2022 SC 3444, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated
the earlier view regarding compliance of the conditions, as
enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, before releasing
the accused person in a case, involving commercial
quantity. The relevant paras 10 to 15 of the judgment are
reproduced, as under:
“10. The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act read
as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
23
High Court of H.P.
“[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;
(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-
(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.
(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.
11. It is evident from a plain reading of the nonobstante
clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the conditions
imposed in subsection (2) of Section 37 that there are
certain restrictions placed on the power of the Court
when granting bail to a person accused of having
committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Not only are
the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in mind, the
restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions
imposed in sub-section (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the
Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to
oppose the application moved by an accused person for
release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then
the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the person accused is not
guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must
be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to
commit any offence while on bail.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
24
High Court of H.P.
12. The expression “reasonable grounds” has come up
for discussion in several rulings of this Court. In
“Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva
Nodira”, (2004) 3 SCC 549, a decision rendered by a
Three Judges Bench of this Court, it has been held
thus:
“7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only
when the question of granting bail arises on merits.
Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public
Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really
have relevance so far as the present accused
respondent is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the
court that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the
alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. The conditions are
cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction
contemplated regarding the accused being not
guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. 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 existence of such facts and circumstances
as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence.” [emphasis added]
13. The expression “reasonable ground” came up for
discussion in “State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh and
others” (2020) 12 SCC 122 and this Court has observed
as below:
“20. 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 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 on hand, the
High Court seems to have completely overlooked
the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
25
High Court of H.P.
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.”
[emphasis added]
14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable
grounds” used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and
grounds for the Court to believe that the accused
person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For
arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and
circumstances must exist in a case that can
persuade the Court to believe that the accused
person would not have committed such an offence.
Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an
additional consideration that the accused person is
unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining
an application for bail in the context of the Section
37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a
finding that the accused person is not guilty. The
Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for
arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has
committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not.
The entire exercise that the Court is expected to
undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of
releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the
availability of reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has
been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an
offence under the Act while on bail.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, Criminal
Appeal No. 5544 of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics Control
Bureau versus Kashif’, Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC
1045, has again reiterated the law, as enumerated by it, in
Mohit Aggarwal’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
26
High Court of H.P.
in this case, has held that the provisions of Section 37 of
NDPS Act are mandatory in nature. Relevant paragraphs 8
and 39 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:
“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 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 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.
(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 early
disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
27
High Court of H.P.
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.”
(self-emphasis supplied)
7. Judging the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as
referred to above, this Court will now proceed further to
determine the fact as to whether, the prayer as made in the
petition, is liable to be accepted.
8. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has
allowed the bail applications, without considering the provisions
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, more particularly,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
28
High Court of H.P.
Section 37(1)(b)(ii). The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, are reproduced 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;
(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-
(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.
(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.”
9. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohit Aggarwal’s and in Kashif’s cases (supra), it is
mandatory for the Court to record the findings, qua the
existence of twin conditions, as enumerated in the
provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The
learned trial Court has fallen into error while holding that
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
29
High Court of H.P.
the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not
applicable. The findings, so recorded by the learned trial
Court, seems to be based upon the assumption qua the fact
that the involvement of the accused persons is based upon
the confessional statement, qua the details regarding
financial transaction, warranting comprehensive legal
scrutiny.
10. When, a thing has been mandated by the
legislature to do in a particular manner, then, the same
cannot be by-passed by the Court, on the basis of self-
drawn assumptions. In para-30 of the order impugned
herein, the learned trial Court has assumed that the
financial transaction in question, pertains to purchase of
contraband, the prosecution’s submissions reveal that none
of the accused engaged in any single substantial financial
transaction that would associate them with the recovery of a
commercial quantity from Mudasir Ahmed Mochi. It has
also been held by the learned trial Court that the accused
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
30
High Court of H.P.
persons may have developed drug dependency at a tender
age and were acquiring the contraband for personal
consumption. Neither this fact has been mentioned by the
accused persons in their bail applications, nor, such stand
has been taken by the prosecution, in the present case.
11. The impugned order is also silent about the fact
as to how the learned trial Court has drawn the conclusion
that the offences against the applicants are punishable
under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, which has been stated to
be inherently bailable.
12. The learned trial Court has although exercised its
discretion, while deciding the question of release of the
applicants on bail, but the discretion must be exercised on
the sound judicial principles and keeping in view the intent
of the legislature in enacting Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
13. The legislature has mandated that before
releasing the accused, involved in the offence punishable
under the provisions of NDPS Act, where commercial
quantity is involved, findings qua existence of the twin
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
31
High Court of H.P.
conditions must be recorded and those findings should be
more than prima-facie findings. Instead of recording the
findings about the existence of twin conditions, the learned
trial Court has given a clean chit to the accused persons by
holding that they have developed drug dependency at a
tender age, and were acquiring contraband for personal
consumption. In such situation, the order passed, by the
learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as
findings as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act are sine qua
non, before allowing the application for bail.
14. Consequently, the orders dated 1.1.2025, and
29.3.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of
which, bail has been granted to the respondents/accused
persons, are ordered to be set aside and the matter is
accordingly remanded back to the learned trial Court.
15. The learned trial Court is requested to decide the
matter afresh, in view of the observations, so made, within a
period of one month, from the date of receipt of the record.
Till the decision of the bail applications afresh, the order of
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:31738
32
High Court of H.P.
the learned trial Court, granting bail, will remain in force on
the same terms and conditions.
16. Intimation regarding this order be given to the
sureties of the accused persons.
17. In view of above, the present matters are
disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
18. Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
July 31, 2026 Judge
(kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS