Bail is the Exception, Not the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5 Crore Drug Racket

“Reasonable Grounds Must Mean More Than Prima Facie Satisfaction”— Himachal Pradesh High Court (Justice Virender Singh) refused to grant bail to multiple accused in a high-stakes drug trafficking case—Shahi Mahatma & Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh—involving a commercial quantity of heroin (chitta) and an alleged interstate drug syndicate. The judgment delivers a resounding reaffirmation of the rigorous standards under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that mere completion of investigation or plea of parity with co-accused cannot dilute the statutory bar against bail in cases involving commercial quantity.

The applications, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were dismissed with stern observations about the societal impact of drug offences and the non-negotiable statutory mandate for courts to ensure strict compliance with NDPS provisions before granting bail.

 “The Statutory Threshold Under Section 37 NDPS Act Has Not Been Met”

The primary contention before the Court was whether the applicants—allegedly part of an extensive syndicate—could be granted bail in light of prior bail orders passed in favour of certain co-accused, and whether the filing of the charge-sheet weakened the case against them. However, the Court held that the applicants had failed to satisfy the twin mandatory conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, i.e., (i) reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that they are not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Justice Singh held: “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.”

Relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s binding precedents in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (AIR 2022 SC 3444) and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045), the Court reiterated that:

“Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. The recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act.”

Multi-State Network, Crores in Drug Money, UPI Transactions and WhatsApp Chats

The present case arises out of FIR No. 50 of 2024, registered on 19.09.2024 under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla. The FIR was lodged after the Anti-Narcotic Task Force intercepted a taxi and recovered 468.380 grams of heroin (chitta) concealed in the undergarments of one Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, a resident of Jammu and Kashmir. The quantity recovered fell well within the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

Subsequent investigation uncovered a web of interstate financial and communication links between Muddasir and other accused, including Shahi Mahatma, Deepak Sharma, Nishant Chauhan, and Hitesh Thakur—all applicants in the present bail pleas. Based on bank account statements, UPI transactions, mobile call data records, and WhatsApp chats, the police alleged that the accused were part of a sophisticated drug distribution network spanning from Kashmir to Himachal Pradesh, with alleged dealings worth over ₹5 crores.

The prosecution relied heavily on confessional statements, financial trails, and digital evidence to build a narrative of organised criminal conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act. It was alleged that the accused not only financed the procurement of chitta but also acted as active distributors, engaging in both sale and personal consumption.

“Parity Can’t Be Claimed on the Basis of Per Incuriam Orders”

The applicants had strongly relied on the plea of parity, pointing to the release of other co-accused by the Special Judge-I, Shimla. However, Justice Singh minced no words in rejecting this argument, holding that:

“Bail orders passed without recording mandatory findings under Section 37 NDPS Act are per incuriam. Parity cannot be claimed on the basis of illegal or flawed bail orders.”

The Court went a step further and criticized the Special Judge’s orders for having completely ignored the statutory mandate under Section 37, particularly clause (1)(b)(ii). It found that the trial court had even described the offence as "bailable" despite the fact that commercial quantity was involved, calling it a “disregard of binding law laid down by the Supreme Court.”

Charge-Sheet Filed? Still No Bail if Section 37 Not Satisfied

The Court also rejected the argument that filing of the charge-sheet entitled the applicants to bail. Justice Singh clarified that:

“Though charge-sheet is filed, seriousness of offence, societal impact, and statutory bar under Section 37 override usual considerations for bail.”

It was further emphasized that the completion of investigation does not dilute the twin conditions of Section 37, especially where the alleged narcotics can impact thousands and the accused are linked through concrete financial and digital evidence.

“The Trade of Chitta Can Ruin Generations”—Court Cites Societal Menace

Perhaps most striking is the Court’s observation about the public health dimension of such offences. Justice Singh noted:

“The recovered contraband, in the present case, can affect about 5000 persons, due to which, the protection of the younger generation from Chitta will become a difficult and serious problem.”

This sentiment aligns with the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122, where it was held that the public interest and societal ramifications of narcotic trafficking must weigh heavily against bail.

In conclusion, the Court held: “Considering all these facts, no case to pass any order in favour of the applicants, under Section 483 BNSS, is made out, at this stage. Consequently, the bail applications of the applicants are dismissed.”

The judgment firmly reiterates that the NDPS Act is a special legislation, whose strict bail provisions override general principles under the BNSS or CrPC, particularly when the quantity involved is commercial and the accused are linked via financial or electronic trails.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026