2026:HHC:4953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

  Cr.MP(M) No. :  67 of 2026

Reserved on  : 24.02.2026

  Decided on    : 26    .02.   202   6

Vishnu Das Vaishnav             …Applicant

      Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh       …Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1   

For the applicant      : Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate.

For the respondent   :Mr.   Tejasvi   Sharma   &   Mr.   H.S.

Rawat,   Additional   Advocates

General.

Virender Singh, Judge

Applicant­Vishnu Das Vaishnav, has filed the

present application, under Section  483  of the  Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to as the

'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of

the   trial,   arising   out   of  FIR   No.213   of   2024,   dated

14.07.2024, registered under Sections 15 and 29 of the

Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act,

1

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2026:HHC:4953

(hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station

Sadar Una, District Una. 

2. According to the applicant, he is an innocent

person and has been named, in the said case, mainly, on

the   basis   of   false   allegations,   made   by   his   co­accused

Rahul Sharma and Gaurav Sharma.

4. The applicant has further pleaded that he has

no connection whatsoever with the above two accused and

his name has wrongly been added in this case with an

ulterior motive to implicate him.  The applicant is stated to

have been named, as accused, in this case, without any

substantive evidence.

5. It is the further case of the applicant that he is

from   respectable   family   and   having   deep   roots   in   the

society.  The applicant is stated to be an agriculturist by

profession and is also running a small Dhaba.

6. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   applicant   that

earlier, apprehending his arrest, he has approached this

Court,   by   filing   Cr.MP(M)   No.95   of   2025,   which   was

dismissed as withdrawn on 10.01.2025.   Thereafter, the

applicant has again filed similar application, which was

3 2026:HHC:4953

dismissed on 08.07.2025.   Thereafter, the petitioner was

arrested on 26.09.2025.

7. Apart from this, Mr. Anshul Jairath,  learned

counsel   appearing   for   the   applicant,   has   given   certain

undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the

applicant   is   ready   to   abide   by,   in   case,   ordered   to   be

released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to allow the application.

9. When  put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the

status report, disclosing therein, that on 14

th

 July, 2024,

ASI Vinod Kumar, along with other police officials, was on

patrolling duty and duty to put picketing, in order to detect

crime relating to excise and narcotics.

9.1. When,   the   said   police   party,   under   the

leadership of ASI Vinod Kumar, was present near Jannat

Hotel, Una, then, a secret information has been received by

the I.O., that a truck bearing No.HP72C­4761, in which,

the contraband is loaded, being driven by its driver, is

coming   from Nangal to Santokhgarh  side.   The name of

the driver was disclosed as Rahul Sharma, who, as per the

4 2026:HHC:4953

information,   has   worn   orange   colour   T­shirt   and   green

colour lower.  

9.2. The said information was found to be authentic

and reliable.  As such, the compliance of Section 42(2) of

NDPS Act was made by the I.O., and submitted to the

superior officer. 

9.3. Thereafter,   the   local   Ward   Member   Kuldeep

Singh,   was   telephonically   apprised   about   the   secret

information   and   requested   to   come   to   the   spot.     After

about, 20 minutes, the said Ward Member, Kuldeep Singh

came there and he was associated in the picketing, after

apprising him about the secret information, which the I.O.

had received.

9.4. At about 9.15 p.m., from Nangal side a truck

bearing   registration   No.HP72C­4761,   as   per   the

information, came there.  The I.O. has given the signal to

stop.   Consequently, the driver stopped the truck on the

left side of the road.  The truck driver found to have worn

orange T­shirt and green colour lower.

9.5. In the presence of the witnesses, name of the

truck driver was enquired, upon which, he had disclosed

5 2026:HHC:4953

his name as Rahul Sharma, son of Shri Raman Kumar.

On demand, the driver produced the registration certificate

of   the   vehicle   and   his   driving   licence.     As   per   the

registration   certificate,   the   said   truck   was   found   to   be

registered in the name of Darshan Singh son of Shri Rattan

Chand.

9.6. The driver was also apprised about the secret

information,  which the I.O. had  received, and  as such,

intention of the I.O., to search the same has been conveyed

to him.  On hearing this, the truck driver became perplexed

and   shown   his   reluctance   to   get   the   truck   searched.

Hence, the I.O. became certain.  As such, in the presence

of the witnesses the seal and bolt of the truck were opened.

9.7. On opening, five boxes of medicines, five white

coloured sack were found in the truck.   On opening, the

five sack, brown colour substance was found, which, on

the   basis   of   the   experience,   was   found   to   be   poppy

husk/poppy straw.  On weighment, the poppy husk, was

found to be 1 quintal, 46 kilograms and 890 grams.

9.8. Other   codal   formalities   were   completed   and

after   registration   of   the   FIR,   accused   was   arrested.

6 2026:HHC:4953

Thereafter,   on   15.7.2024,   he   was   produced   before   the

Court, where proceedings under Section 52 of the NDPS

act, were got conducted.  Thereafter, further investigation

was handed over to SIT, which was constituted under the

leadership of probationary Dy.SP.  

9.9. During police remand, accused Rahul Sharma,

disclosed that he had brought the poppy husk from the

Dhaba of Vishnu Vaishnav son of Shri Bhagwan Dass,

resident of Village and Post Office Negadiya, Tehsil Dungla,

District Chittaudgarh, Rajasthan (applicant).

9.10. Consequently,   Dhaba   of   applicant   was   got

identified   by   accused   Rahul   Sharma.     Spot   map   was

prepared,   however,   accused   Vishnu   Vaishnav,   was   not

found there as he was found to be absconded.   During

investigation, accused Rahul Sharma disclosed that he has

brought 60 kilograms of poppy husk for himself and 90

kilograms for Gaurav Sharma, payment of which has been

made by Gaurav Sharma to Vishnu Vaishnav.

9.11. As per the CDRs of Vishnu Vaishnav, Gaurav

Sharma   and   Rahul   Sharma,   they   were   found   to   be   in

contact with each other, through Whatsapp and normal

7 2026:HHC:4953

calls.     On   23.07.2024,   accused   Gaurav   Sharma   was

associated in the investigation and was arrested on the

ground that Gaurav Sharma has disclosed to the Police

that in order to purchase poppy husk, he has transferred a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/­, through Googlepay.  Thereafter, on

23.07.2024, the bank statements of the accused persons

were obtained from their banks.

9.12. On perusal, it was found that accused Gaurav

Sharma,   in   the   period   of   about   nine   months,   had

transferred   a   sum   of   Rs.27,00,000/­   in   the   account   of

Vishnu Vaishnav (applicant), through UPI transaction.

9.13. It is the further case of the police that when

applicant Vishnu Vaishnav, could not be nabbed, then the

proceedings   under   Section   84   of   BNSS   were   initiated

against him and on 27.06.2025, the proceedings to declare

him as proclaimed offender, were initiated.  Thereafter, the

applicant was arrested by Police of Police Station Sadar

Gurugram, Haryana and was produced before the learned

Sessions Judge, Una, from where, he was remanded to the

police custody from 26.09.2025 to 30.09.2025.  Thereafter,

on 30.09.2025, he was remanded to the judicial custody.

8 2026:HHC:4953

9.14. It   has   also   been   mentioned,   in   the   status

report,   that   the   investigation,   in   the   present   case,   is

complete and the final report has been filed in the Court of

learned Sessions Judge, Una, on 16.12.2025, which was

listed on 18.02.2026.  It has also been apprehended that

the applicant is a clever person and may flee from justice,

in case, he is enlarged on bail. 

10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the application.

11. In this case, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant has sought the relief of bail on the ground that

the involvement of the applicant has been found on the

basis of the alleged disclosure statement made by accused

Rahul   Sharma   and   Gaurav   Sharma.     According   to   the

learned   counsel   for   the   applicant,   the   said   disclosure

statement is not admissible in law.

12. Admittedly,   the   said   disclosure   statement

cannot   be   taken   into   consideration,   however,   the

involvement of the applicant is not only on the basis of the

disclosure statement as the said fact can be said to be a

clue to the  police  to investigate  the matter  further.   It

9 2026:HHC:4953

cannot be expected from the police that they will possess

divine   sight.     They   have   to   proceed   further   in   the

investigation of the case, even on the alleged disclosure,

made by the other accused, during investigation.  

13. Similarly, the CDRs can also be ignored, at this

stage, to connect the accused with the crime in question,

but, when, the police found huge transactions of about

Rs.27,00,000/­   between   the   Gaurav   Sharma   with   the

applicant, then the said transactions cannot be ignored.  

14. The applicant is resident of Rajasthan, whereas,

accused   Gaurav   Sharma,   is   resident   of   Roopnagar

(Punjab).  Whatsoever defence, which has been highlighted

by the learned counsel for the applicant qua his alleged

business,   would   be   proved   or   probabilized   during   the

evidence.  

15. In   case,   the   police   will   not   be   able   to   find

further involvement of the accused, on the basis of the

huge   transactions,   between   the   applicant   and   accused

Rahul Sharma, then certainly, the alleged disclosure would

be nothing, but inadmissible evidence.

10 2026:HHC:4953

16. As such,  the stand taken by the police, in the

status   report,   that   accused   Gaurav   Sharma,   had

transferred a sum of Rs.27,00,000/­, within a short period

of   nine   months,   to   the   account   of   applicant   Vishnu

Vaishnav,   is   a   fact,   which   assumes   significance,   as

according to accused Rahul Sharma, he has brought 90

kilograms poppy husk for accused Gaurav Sharma and

payment   of   the   same   was   made   by   accused   Gaurav

Sharma to applicant Vishnu Vaishnav.

17. The  applicant, in the present case, has been

arrested,   under   the   provisions   of   NDPS   Act.   The

legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted this statute to curb

the   menace   of   drug   abuse   with   stringent   punishment.

Certain conditions are there, in the NDPS Act, in the shape

of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which are, in addition to the

conditions,   as   contained   in   Section  483   of   the   BNSS.

Before   releasing   a   person   on   bail,   those   conditions,   as

enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are to be

fulfilled, if the accused has been arrested for the offence,

involving ‘commercial quantity’ of contraband.  Contraband,

11 2026:HHC:4953

i.e., 1 quintal, 46 kilograms and 890 grams of poppy husk

(Bhukki), falls within the definition of commercial quantity.

18. Once,   it   has   been   held   that   the   contraband

allegedly   recovered,   in   the   present   case,   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.

19. 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,   in   a   case,   where,   the   accused,   involving   the

commercial quantity of contraband, seeks his release on

bail. Relevant paragraphs 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; 

12 2026:HHC:4953

(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

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.

13 2026:HHC:4953

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

14 2026:HHC:4953

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.

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.”

15 2026:HHC:4953

20.  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

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

16 2026:HHC:4953

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.

(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)

17 2026:HHC:4953

21.  In view of the above, there is nothing on record

to give an occasion for this Court to hold that the twin

conditions, as enumerated, in Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

are in favour of the applicant, in the present case.

22.  Considering all these facts, this Court is of the

view that the applicant is not able to make out a case, on

the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant is not

guilty of such offence and in case, he is ordered to be

released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. As

such,   in   the   absence   of   the   satisfaction   of   the   twin

conditions, the applicant is not held entitled to any relief,

under Section  483 of the BNSS.   Consequently, the bail

application is dismissed.

23. 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 application.

                ( Virender Singh )

              Judge

February 26, 2026 (ps)