Fails to Satisfy "Twin Conditions" of NDPS Act: HP HC Denies Bail in Charas Case

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a bail application, reiterating that the stringent 'twin conditions' of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for offences involving a commercial quantity, and that a claim of non-communication of arrest grounds is not sufficient to grant bail when the accused was caught red-handed.

The bail application was filed by Bali Ram, who was in custody for over eight months in FIR No. 131 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, violating his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, and that his continued custody without trial amounted to illegal pre-trial detention.

The State opposed the plea, asserting that the petitioner was caught red-handed with a commercial quantity (1.466 kgs) of charas, and therefore, the rigorous requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

A single bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kainthla, placing heavy reliance on a catena of Supreme Court judgments, held that the 'twin conditions' of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are paramount and must be strictly construed in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

The court extensively discussed the legal position, as laid down in cases like Union of India vs. Niyazuddin and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, that bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are 'reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail'. The bench then addressed the petitioner's primary contention regarding the non-communication of arrest grounds.

Relying on precedents such as Madhu Limaye, Balbir Kaur, and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, the court held that when an accused is apprehended red-handed with contraband, they are deemed to be aware of the nature of the offence, and the failure to provide written grounds of arrest does not, by itself, invalidate the custody or entitle the accused to bail, particularly in the absence of demonstrable prejudice. The court rejected the argument that the observations in Madhu Limaye were merely obiter dicta, affirming the binding nature of Supreme Court pronouncements.

Applying the law to the facts, the court found that the prosecution had sufficient prima facie material to connect the petitioner with the offence and that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the 'twin conditions' of Section 37. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the case at trial.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates