As per case facts, applicants sought bail under BNSS for charges under the NDPS Act, including possession of commercial quantity. They asserted innocence, claiming no recovery from them and false ...
2026:HHC:11487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) Nos. : 320 & 322 of 2026
Reserved on : 2
nd
April, 2026
Decided on : 7
th
April, 2026
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 320 of 2026
Veer Chand …Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 322 of 2026
Mahavir …Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
1
Yes
For the applicant : Mr. Balram Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Dr. Sahil Malhotra,
Advocate.
For the respondent :Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional
Advocate General, assisted by HC
Brij Mohan, Police Station,
Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
Virender Singh, Judge
The above titled bail applications are being
decided by the common order, as, the applicants have filed
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:11487
these applications, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release them on bail, during
the pendency of the trial arising out of FIR No.65 of 2024,
dated 18.03.2024, registered under Sections 21, 29, 8C
and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’),
with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
2. It is the case of the applicants that they are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present
case, as no recovery of contraband or any incriminating
substance has ever been effected from their conscious and
exclusive possession.
3. According to the applicants, they have been
involved, in the present case, on the statement of Nand Lal,
who is father of the main accused Suresh Kumar, in
which, he has alleged to the police that the contraband
belongs to applicant Veer Chand and applicant Veer Chand
has paid a sum of Rs.27,000/ to Suresh Kumar on
15.3.2024.
3 2026:HHC:11487
4. As per the applicants, they have no concern
with the alleged crime and nothing has been recovered
from their possession.
5. According to the applicants, investigation, in
the present case, is complete, as such, no useful purpose
would be served by keeping them in the judicial custody,
that too, for indefinite period.
6. As per the applicants, the entire police story is
totally improbable and appears to be concocted, just to
falsely implicate the applicants, in the present case.
7. The applicants have also tried their luck before
the learned Special JudgeII, Solan, District Solan, H.P., by
moving similar applications. However, the said
applications have been dismissed, vide order, dated 3
rd
October, 2024 and 29
th
October, 2024.
8. Thereafter, the applicants had approached this
Court, by way of Cr.MP(M) Nos.2460 & 2550 of 2024,
which were also dismissed vide orders dated 13.11.2024
and 24.12.2024. Thereafter, applicant Veer Chand has
again filed Cr.MP(M) No. 1185 of 2025, which was also
dismissed by this Court on 22.05.2025. The said order,
4 2026:HHC:11487
passed by this Court, has been assailed by applicantVeer
Chand, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, his
SLP has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
vide order dated 16.07.2025. Subsequently, applicant Veer
Chand, has again filed similar application before the
learned trial Court, which was also dismissed on
15.10.2025. Applicant Mahavir has also filed Cr.MP(M) No.
2061 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide
order dated 16.09.2025. Thereafter, the applicants have
again filed Cr.MP(M) Nos.2944 & 2955 of 2025, which were
also dismissed on 8
th
January, 2026.
9. Apart from this, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate,
appearing for the applicants, has given certain
undertakings, on behalf of the applicants, for which, the
applicants are ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be
released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
10 On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the applications.
11. When put to notice, the police has filed
the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.3.2024,
5 2026:HHC:11487
SDPO Nalagarh, along with other police officials, was
present at village Vodala. They had put the picketing to
preventing the trafficking of illicit liquor, in view of the
ensuing Lok Sabha Election. They were checking the
vehicles crossing from that spot.
11.1. At about, 06.30. p.m., from Ratyod side, one
person was noticed coming on foot, who, on inquiry,
disclosed his name as Joginder Singh son of Shri Mast
Ram. He has also disclosed that he is Ward Member of
Ward No.11, of Gram Panchayat Dabhota.
11.2. In the meanwhile, from Ratyod side, at about
6.35 p.m. one Pickup vehicle bearing No.HP939431
Marka Tata Yodha, being driven by its driver, was found
coming. The SDPO has signalled him to stop, but, the
driver, at once tried to reverse the vehicle. Consequently,
with the help of police officials, the vehicle was intercepted
and was stopped. The driver was found to be perplexed.
11.3. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as
Suresh Kumar son of Shri Nand Lal, but, could not give
the satisfactory answers to the queries, as such, on the
6 2026:HHC:11487
basis of suspicion, the vehicle was searched, but, nothing
incriminating was found.
11.4. Keeping in view the fact that the driver was
perplexed, a suspicion raised, in the mind of the SDPO,
that he might be concealing something illegal, in his
vehicle. Consequently, the bonnet of the vehicle was
opened and on the conductor side of the bonnet, five
carton boxes were found to be concealed. ‘Diphenoxylate
Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate Tablets IP Lomotil’ was
found to be written on every box.
11.5. The SDPO, with the help of police officials
opened those boxes and total 28140 tablets of Lomotil were
found. The said person i.e. Suresh Kumar, could not
produce any document to transport the same.
11.6. Consequently, the said contraband was taken
into possession and rukka was sent to the Police Station
for registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested.
12. After completion of the codal formalities, the
contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL Junga. During
the Police custody, the accused was taken to Sikandra
7 2026:HHC:11487
Pharmacy (Agra), Agra, where, applicant Mahabir Singh,
was associated and arrested.
13. It is the further case of the police that on
12.8.2024, Nand Lal, father of accused Suresh Kumar,
made a complaint to the police that the contraband, which
was allegedly found from the possession of his son was
meant for being delivered to applicant Veer Chand and for
that, according to the father of Suresh Kumar, on
15.3.2024, applicant Veer Chand has transferred a sum of
Rs.27,000/ in the account of his son.
14. Consequently, the Bank statement of Suresh
Kumar was obtained and on perusing the same, the said
fact was found to be correct.
15. Thereafter, CDR was also obtained and on
checking the CDR of mobile phone of accused Suresh
Kumar, from 1.2.2024 to 18.3.2024, from the mobile
phone of accused Suresh Kumar, 26 calls were found to be
made to the mobile number of applicant Veer Chand. On
15/16.03.2024, applicant Veer Chand was found to be in
touch with accused Suresh Kumar.
8 2026:HHC:11487
16. On 12.8.2024, Veer Chand was associated in
the investigation and was arrested. Thereafter, the
statement of Bank account of applicant Veer Chand was
obtained. Till 14.08.2024, in the bank account of
applicant Veer Chand, a sum of Rs.5,35,918/ was found
as balance, whereas, in the same Bank, he was having the
FDs total amounting to Rs.17,30,538/. Relevant
documents were taken into possession and accused were
arrested.
17. It has also been found, in the investigation, that
from 30.11.2023 to 15.3.2024, applicant Veer Chand from
his Bank account, maintained in Union Bank of India,
Nalagarh, has transferred a sum of Rs.3,55,502/ through
online transfer to Bank Account of Suresh Kumar, which
was maintained in State Bank of India, Nalagarh Branch.
18. Similarly, It has also been found that from the
Bank account of accused Suresh Kumar, from 30.11.2023
to 17.3.2024, a sum of Rs.4,23,060/ has been found to be
transferred in the Bank account of applicant Mahavir, who,
as per the police report, was running a medical store in
Sikandra (Agra).
9 2026:HHC:11487
19. It has also been pleaded, in the status report,
that the statement of account of applicant Veer Chand,
from his banker Union Bank of India Nalagarh, has been
obtained, according to which, in the bank account of
applicant Veer Chand bearing No.520101203173461, a
sum of Rs,5,35,918/ has been shown to be balance as on
14.08.2024. Apart from this, he was having four FDs of
Rs.17,30,538/. Those documents were taken into
possession.
20. During investigation, it has been found that
applicant Veer Chand used to transfer amount in the
account of his coaccused Suresh Kumar for purchasing
the prohibited Lomotil Tablets, as such, Sections 27A and
8C of the NDPS Act was added, in the present case.
21. It is the further case of the Police that as per
statement of account from 30.11.2023 to 15.03.2024,
applicant Veer Chand transferred a sum of Rs.3,55,502/
through online mode from his account bearing account
No.520101203173461, in the bank account of Suresh
bearing No.55156299763, maintained with State Bank of
India, Nalagarh Branch. When the Google Pay and PayTM
10 2026:HHC:11487
history of accused Suresh Kumar were checked, it was
found that he has made online transactions of
Rs.4,23,060/ from 30.11.2023 to 17.03.2024, into the
account of applicant Mahavir, bearing No.3609108001260.
22. Lastly, it has been submitted that apart from
the present case, another case bearing FIR No.100/2018,
under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, has been registered
against applicant Veer Chand, in Police Station Nalagarh,
whereas, against applicant no case is found to have been
registered. It has also been apprehended that in case the
applicants are released on bail, they may again indulge in
the same activities.
23. Investigation, in the present case, is complete
and the police has filed the chargesheet, before the
competent Court of law, which is now listed for PWs.
24. On all these submissions, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the applications.
25. In this case, the applications of the applicants,
have been dismissed on merits, by this Court. The said
order, although, has been assailed, before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, by applicant Veer Chand, but, the relief
11 2026:HHC:11487
has not been granted to him. Thereafter, the applicants
again filed similar applications, before this Court, which
were dismissed on 8
th
January, 2026.
26. In nut shell, the allegations, which have been
levelled against the applicants are that when the father of
accused Suresh Kumar, made a complaint to police on
12.08.2024, disclosing therein, that the contraband
recovered from the possession of his son Suresh Kumar
was, in fact, got transported through his son Suresh
Kumar and for the said work, applicant Veer Chand, had
transferred a sum of Rs.27,000/ to his account.
Consequently, the statement of account of Suresh Kumar,
from the Bank of India was obtained and it was found that
a sum of Rs.27,000/ was transferred from the ID of
applicant Veer Chand.
27. Thereafter, CDR of mobile phone
No.9736396949 was checked and it was found that from
1.2.2024 to 18.02.2024, on 26 occasions, applicant Veer
Chand has made calls to Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, o n
12.8.2024, applicant Veer Chand was arrested. When
Google Pay history of applicant Veer Chand was checked, it
12 2026:HHC:11487
was found that from 30.11.2023 to 15.3.2024, applicant
Veer Chand, had transferred a sum of Rs.3,55,502/
through online transfer to Bank Account of Suresh Kumar,
which was maintained in State Bank of India, Nalagarh
Branch. When the Google Pay and PayTM history of
accused Suresh Kumar were checked, it was found that he
has made online transactions of Rs.4,23,060/ from
30.11.2023 to 17.03.2024, into the account of applicant
Mahavir, bearing No.3609108001260.
28. It is the further case of the police that when the
details of the bank account of applicant Veer Chand was
obtained from Union Bank of India, it was found that on
14.08.2024, a sum of Rs,5,35,918/ was in his bank
account and apart from this, he was having four FDs of
Rs.17,30,538/.
29. When, the Bank statements of all the three
accused were perused, it was found that from 30.11.2023
to 15.3.2024, applicant Veer Chand, had transferred a sum
of Rs.3,55,502/ to the account of Suresh Kumar, whereas,
accused Suresh Kumar, had transferred a sum of
Rs.4,23,060/ to the account of applicant Mahavir from
13 2026:HHC:11487
30.11.2023 to 17.3.2024. Applicant Mahavir is resident of
District Agra Uttar Pradesh and as per the stand of the
police, applicant Mahavir was the person, from whom,
Suresh had purchased the Lomotil tablets.
30. In this case, it has vigorously been argued by
Mr. Balram Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Dr.
Sahil Malhotra, Advocate, that the statement of the father
of accused Suresh Kumar was recorded on 12.08.2024,
whereas, the FIR was registered on 18.03.2024.
31. It has further been argued that when Suresh
Kumar made the revelation to his father about the
involvement of applicant Veer Chand, at that time, he was
in judicial custody, as such, his statement is not
admissible in law.
32. The said argument of learned Senior Counsel is
devoid of merit as the police officials are not having a
divine sight to know about the involvement of accused.
33. The police always acts upon the information
received/revelation made by the witnesses or by the
accused persons. Although, there is a bar on the
admissibility of the statement of accused, who is in
14 2026:HHC:11487
custody, but, the police had every power to proceed further
in the investigation to ascertain the role of a person whose
name has been disclosed by the accused.
34. Here, in this case, situation would have been
otherwise, had there been no financial transaction, that
too, of huge amount, and then, on the sole ground of
revelation, made by accused Suresh Kumar, no criminality
could be attributed to accused Veer Chand.
35. Whatsoever has been disclosed by accused
Suresh to his father, which, in turn, he had revealed to the
I.O., the police had further investigated the matter and it
has been found that huge amount has been transferred by
applicant Veer Chand to Suresh Kumar and thereafter,
Suresh Kumar has transferred the same to applicant
Mahavir, who is resident of Agra, from whom, allegedly the
contraband was purchased/brought.
36. As stated above, the earlier bail applications of
the applicants were dismissed, by this Court, on 8
th
January, 2026 and the present bail applications are totally
silent about any change in the circumstances.
15 2026:HHC:11487
37. The contraband, allegedly recovered, in this
case, is 28140 tablets of Lomotil, which falls within the
definition of ‘commercial quantity’.
38. Once, it has been held that the contraband
allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused 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.
39. In this case, the police, on the basis of the
financial transactions, has also added Section 27A of the
NDPS Act, which provides punishment for financing illicit
trafficking. Therefore, it is incumbent upon this Court to
give findings, with regard to fulfillment of twin conditions,
as enumerated, under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act
i.e., (i) that the applicants are not guilty of such offence, for
which they have been arrested, and (ii) that while on bail,
they are not likely to commit any offence.
40. 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
16 2026:HHC:11487
of the conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. 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:
“[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 non
obstante clause inserted in subsection (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
17 2026:HHC:11487
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 subsection (1) of Section
37 are also to be factored in. The conditions
imposed in subsection (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.
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
18 2026:HHC:11487
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 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 SubSection (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. Dovetailed with
the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional
consideration that the accused person is
unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
19 2026:HHC:11487
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.”
41. 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, 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
20 2026:HHC:11487
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. 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) Subsection (2) of Section 52A lays down the
procedure as contemplated in subsection (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.
21 2026:HHC:11487
(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.”
(selfemphasis supplied)
42. At this stage, there is nothing on record to
probabilize the defence, which has been taken, by the
applicants, in this case, nor to justify the payment of the
amount, on account of transportation charges, as such,
merely pleading the said fact, is too short to satisfy the
twin conditions as enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS
Act.
43. Moreover, the said stand may be the defence of
applicant Veer Chand, which would be proved or
probabilized during the trial. Without any proof, the said
stand, cannot be taken, by this Court, as gospel truth, to
conclude, at this stage, that the amount was transferred by
22 2026:HHC:11487
applicant Veer Chand in the account of Suresh, who
allegedly transferred the amount to applicant Mahavir,
resident of Agra, U.P.
44. Considering all these facts, there is nothing on
the record, on the basis of which, it can be said, at this
stage, that the applicants are not guilty of such offences or
while on bail, they are not likely to commit any offence. As
such, no case to pass any order in favour of the applicants,
under Section 483 BNSS, is made out. Consequently, the
bail applications are dismissed.
45. Any of the observations, made herein above,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present bail applications.
Record be sent back to the quarter concerned.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
April 09, 2026(ps)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....