Suraj Mani vs State Of H.P

Virender Singh, J

The applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.N.S.S.') in case FIR No. 133 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, under Sections 18, 20, 25 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS") registered with Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

According to the applicant, he has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he is an innocent person and has nothing to do with the case.

According to the applicant, recovery was not effected from his conscious possession, and the contraband was recovered from an unclaimed bag, in the bus, in which, he was travelling.

The contents of the FIR is stated to be result of a concocted story. The story of the police is also stated to be highly improbable.

Applicant has further pleaded that investigation, in the present case, is complete and Police has filed the charge sheet. All these facts have been pleaded to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant, is no longer required by the Police.

The applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application before the learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 1.12.2025.

The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail.

On the basis of above facts, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate has vehemently argued that there is sufficient material on record to record the findings, in favour of the applicant, as required under the provisions of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

In addition to this, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate has placed on record the copy of arrest memo and averred that grounds of arrest were not furnished to him, in writing, as only the intimation regarding arrest, was given to him.

In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan versus Union of India & anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s) 3326 of 2026.

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during pendency of the trial.

When, put to notice, Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 21.11.2024, HRTC bus No. HP 66-9707, was moving from Kullu to Pathankot. The said vehicle was driven by Jitender Kumar and Roshan Lal was conductor. Both driver and conductor reached Police Station, Palampur and made a complaint that in the bus, they noticed an unclaimed bag. They had inquired about the ownership of bag, from the passengers, travelling in the bus, but, everyone has denied to claim the same. As such, they have developed suspicion in their mind that the same might be containing some suspicious article.

12.1 Upon the said information, ASI Gopal Krishan alongwith other police officials, reached at the spot, where 6-7 passengers were found in the bus. They were inquired about the unclaimed bag, but, all of them had refused to own the same, upon which, all of them were inquired regarding their names and addresses. In the meanwhile, one person, who has disclosed his name as Suraj Mani, S/o Kalu Ram, R/o Vill Graman, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi (applicant), was inquired about the bag, upon which, he became perplexed and was inquired strictly. He disclosed that the bag is containing charas/bhang, which according to him, belongs to Kumar Chand and Sunil Kumar, both residents of Village Vulang.

12.2 As per the applicant, both Sunil Kumar and Kumar Chand were going towards Pathankot in a red coloured Scorpio, bearing registration No. HP76-3921. Both of them are stated to have met him at Jogindernagar and assured him to pay Rs. 5,000-10,000/- and they will tell him where to meet them alongwith the bag. Applicant Suraj Mani approached the bus and put the bag on the rack, upon which, ASI Gopal Kishan nabbed the applicant.

12.3 During investigation, before checking the bag, the passengers present in the bus, were apprised about the said fact and were requested to be the witnesses, but all of them had put forward their inability to do so, upon which, Driver Jitender Kumar and Conductor Roshan Lal were associated, as independent witnesses.

12.4 When, the bag was checked, a white coloured polythene was found containing four packets, which were wrapped with the help of cello-tape. On opening, the same was found to be black coloured stick shaped substance, which, on the basis of experience and smelling, was found to be charas. Applicant Suraj Mani also confirmed the fact that the same is charas.

12.5 When, the said packets were further checked, then, in one packet, stick shaped substance was found, which, on smelling and experience was found to be opium. When, the contraband was weighed, then, the charas was found to be 4.028 kg charas and opium was found to be 0.054 gram. The contraband was taken into possession.

12.6 After completion of other codal formalities, ruqua was prepared, upon which, FIR has been registered, against the applicant and he was arrested.

12.7 During investigation, he has disclosed about the manner as to how the contraband was handed over to him, for being delivered at the place, which would be informed by the co-accused Kumar Chand and Sunil Kumar. Upon the involvement of other persons, Section 29 of the NDPS act was added, in this case.

12.8 According to the police, from the date, when the case was registered, mobile phones of accused Kumar Chand and Sunil Kumar, were found switched off, nor the aforesaid accused persons were found, despite search.

12.9 On 22.11.2024, applicant Suraj Mani was produced before the Court, and he was remanded to police custody, for five days. Thereafter, inventory proceedings were got conducted. The contraband was thereafter, sent to SFSL, Junga, from where, the positive report has been received. Charge-sheet against the accused has been prepared and submitted before the competent Court on 16.5.2026. His co-accused Kumar Chand and Sunil Kumar were searched. On 27.6.2025, accused Kumar Chand has surrendered before the Police.

12.10 During investigation, on the basis of CDRs of mobile phones of accused persons, as well as, from the perusal of the CCTV footage, involvement of accused Kumar Chand with applicant Suraj Mani and accused Sunil Kumar was found. As such, charge-sheet has also been filed.

12.11 Lastly, it has been apprehended that accused Sunil Kumar is yet to be arrested and in case, the application is allowed, he may interfere in the proceedings of the case and may also not be available for trial. Apart from this, it has also been apprehended that in case, the applicant is released on bail, the accused may coerce the witnesses and may again indulge in the same activities. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

Admittedly, the contraband, i.e. charas, found in the present case, falls within the definition of 'commercial quantity'. In this case, before releasing the accused on bail, it is incumbent upon the Court to record the findings, in favour of accused, which should be more than prima-facie, qua the fact that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and in case, he is released on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. Recording of the satisfaction, which should be more than prima-facie satisfaction, is sine quo non, for releasing the accused, involved in the case, pertaining to the 'commercial quantity'.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif', 2024(II) SCC 372, has mandated that in case of commercial quantity of the contraband, the accused shall generally be not released on bail, until or unless, the conditions, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are held to be existed in favour of the applicant. 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 xxx

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.

(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."

(self-emphasis supplied)

The applicant, in the present case, has sought relief of bail on the ground that recovery was not effected from him and he has falsely been implicated, in the case, by the police only on the ground that one unclaimed bag was found in the bus, in which, he was travelling. Even, as per the case of the Police, driver and conductor had gone to Police station, Palampur and made a complaint regarding the fact that one unclaimed bag was found in the bus, which has not been owned by any of the passengers. However, according to the Police, when, ASI Gopal Kishan reached at the spot and inquired from the passengers, then, all of them had disowned the same, but when, applicant Suraj Mani was inquired, he became perplexed, upon which, he was further inquired and he has disclosed that the said bag was containing charas, which belongs to accused Kumar Chand and Sunil Kumar.

In the status report, the police has also perused the CCTV footage of bus-stand, Jogindernagar and the taxi stand near Vijay Dhaba, Jogindernagar, and on perusing the CCTV footage, involvement of sunil Kumar, Kumar Chand and applicant Suraj Mani was found.

The involvement of accused Kumar Chand and Sunil Kumar has been found on the ground of disclosure statement made by applicant Suraj Mani, when, he was inquired by the Police.

18.It is not the case of the applicant that he was not present in the bus, when, ASI Gopal Krishan had inquired from the passengers, including the applicant. Although, disclosure qua the contents of bag was made by the applicant, when, he was in the police custody, but, subsequent recovery of contraband from the said bag, and thereafter, involvement of accused persons Sunil Kumar and Kumar Chand, on the basis of CCTV footage, are the facts, which are too short to record the findings, in favour of the applicant, as mandated in Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. In other words, at this stage, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the accused is not guilty of such offence, nor it can be said that in case, he is released on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence.

In this case, the relief of bail has also been sought on the ground that the I.O., when arrested the applicant, has not provided the grounds of arrest in writing to him. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in Dr. Rajinder Rajan's case (supra). Relevant paragraphs 20 to 22 of the judgment are reproduced as under:

"20. It is no longer res integra that supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith.

Shri Kaushik tried to convince the Court that the grounds of arrest were orally explained to the accused at the time of preparation of the arrest memo. We have perused the arrest memo placed on record by Shri Kaushik and extract the same for the sake of ready reference:-

"Arrest Memo

Consequent upon the recovery/seizure of 2000 Tablets of Tramadol on 02/05/2025 from Corporate Chemist inside Corporate Hospital, Batola Road, Amritsar -14300/ and on the basis of voluntarily statement dated 02/05/2025 of Rajinder Rajan S/O Janak Raj R/o D-84, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 having reasons to believe that Rajinder Rajan has violated section 8 and 22 of NDPS act and committed offence punishable u/s 8 and 22 of NDPS Act; accordingly, I place Rajinder Rajan under arrest on 02/05/2025 at 2300 hrs. I have explained the ground of arrest to him/her before arrest.

On going through the arrest memo, we find that it has been prepared in a template format and contains a statement to the effect that the arresting officer had explained the grounds of arrest to the accused before the arrest. Thus, the arrest memo, by itself, reflects that the grounds of arrest had been orally explained to the accused before the process of formal arrest was undertaken. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the arresting officer to have supplied the memo of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused two hours prior to producing them before the Magistrate as per the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) which apparently has not been followed in this case.

With due respect to the law laid down in the said case, the relief as sought in the present application, cannot be granted to the applicant, as in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharashtra & anr., reported in (2026)1 Supreme Court Cases 500, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that requirement of written communication of the grounds of arrest, will govern henceforth, i.e. from the date of decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case, which was decided on 6.11.2025, whereas, accused (applicant) in the present case, was arrested on 21.11.2024. Relevant paragraph 68 of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

(self emphasis supplied)

In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to make out a case for his release on bail, at this stage.

Considering all these facts, the present bail application is dismissed.

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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.

Record be returned to the quarter concerned.