Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Granted Based On Assumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS Act”), by an accused arrested for an offence under Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act”).Section 27 A of the NDPS Act deals with the punishment for harbouring offenders and financing Illicit traffic. This includes being directly or indirectly involved in funding the illicit activities. The punishment for such an offence is at least 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court held that bail under the NDPS Act can't be granted based on assumptions that the applicants may have developed drug dependency at a young age and were acquiring Heroin for personal consumption. Justice Virender Singh: “ At the time of deciding the bail application, the Courts are not expected to draw such assumption and the provisions of NDPS Act are to be interpreted literally and not liberally”. Background Facts:The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 468.380 grams of Heroin from a vehicle travelling from Shimla to Rohru. The police had received information about the vehicle carrying Heroin, so they located the vehicle. During a search of the passengers, a black coloured plastic envelope containing Heroin was found hidden in the Underwear of the passenger sitting in the rear seat. Pursuant to which the police registered an FIR, interrogated the passengers, and arrested them. During, interrogation the accused revealed that they were members of a gang involved in the supply of Heroin across different towns of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter an investigation was carried out to locate other gang members and upon being found they were also subsequently arrested.On perusal of the bank transactions of the gang members it was revealed that the Applicant, Deepak Sharma had sent money to the gang leader multiple times for purchase of Heroin. So, the applicant was arrested and charged for crime under Section 27 A of NDPS Act. Thereafter the applicant, had filed an application for bail under section 483 of the BNSS Act, claiming to be innocent and falsely implicated. The Applicant contended that he worked in a private firm and only consumes Heroin for his personal gain and does not have any criminal history.He further submitted that the contraband had not been recovered from his possession, and he had been solely charged based on a bank transaction with the distributor of drugs. He stated that he is entitled to bail as two co-accused who were arrested with him were already released on bail by the Court of Special Judge Bench, Shimla. Findings: The High court observed, that offences under section 27A of NDPS Act invoke the strict bail restrictions under Section 37 of the Act. In 'Narcotics Control Bureau v/s Kashif' the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature and when the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail and Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. The High Court further remarked that as per Section 37(b) a person accused of an offence under section 27A of the act can't be released on bail. In respect to the Applicant's Contention that his Co-accused were released on bail by the Special Judge Bench, Shimla. The court held that the order by the Special bench was passed without consideration of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail. However, the order of bail passed by the special judge bench was based on assumption that the applicants may have developed drug dependencies at a tender age and were acquiring contraband for personal consumption. The court further held that at the time of deciding the bail application, the Courts are not expected to draw such assumption and the provisions of NDPS Act are to be interpreted literally and not liberally. Consequently, the court rejected the application for bail and also initiated suo motu proceedings against the other co-accused who were granted bail. Show cause notices were issued to them and were asked to explain why their bail should not be cancelled and why they should not be under judicial custody. Case Name: Deepak Sharma v/s State of Himachal PradeshCase No.: Cr.MP (M) No. 456 of 2025Date of Decision: 10.04.2025For the applicant : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Granted Based On Assumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bail Under Section 37 Of NDPS Act Can't Be Granted Based On Assumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers