Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case

"Bail Application Cannot Be Rejected as a Matter of Punishment — Pre-Trial Punishment Is Prohibited Under Law", Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused facing trial for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin, holding that registration of multiple prior NDPS cases without any conviction cannot be a ground to keep an accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period.

Justice Virender Singh held that since the quantity involved did not reach commercial threshold, the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted, and the apprehensions of the State regarding tampering and re-offending could be adequately addressed through bail conditions.

The core legal questions before the court were: whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act — which impose stringent conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases — were attracted on the facts; whether prior registration of multiple NDPS cases against the applicant, without any conviction, could justify continued pre-trial detention; and whether prolonged custody pending a trial unlikely to conclude soon warranted bail.

Section 37 Rigours Not Attracted — Quantity Below Commercial Threshold

The court's first and most significant finding was that the quantity recovered — 6.08 grams of heroin — did not fall within the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. This is a threshold finding of considerable practical importance, since the twin conditions of Section 37, which require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, are only attracted where the charge relates to commercial quantity. The court held plainly: "The contraband, allegedly recovered, in this case, from the possession of the applicant, does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity, as such, rigors of Section 37 of ND&PS Act are not applicable in the present case."

Prior Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody

The State's principal objection to bail was that the applicant had multiple prior NDPS cases registered against him — four as per the police report, five as per the applicant's own disclosure. The court examined this argument and rejected it on two independent grounds.

First, the applicant had not been convicted in any of those cases by any court of competent jurisdiction. Second — and importantly — the court noted that the State had not made any effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of those other cases. "Admittedly, in those cases, he has not been convicted by the Competent Court of Law, nor has the police made any efforts to get the bail cancelled in the above noted cases by moving appropriate application."

This is a pointed observation: the State cannot invoke unresolved prior cases as a bar to bail in the present case when it has itself taken no steps to act on those cases in any substantive manner.

"Bail Cannot Be Refused as a Matter of Punishment"

The court stated in unambiguous terms the foundational principle that the bail jurisprudence in India rests upon: "The bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law."

This principle, read together with the fact that the applicant had been in custody since March 28, 2025 — nearly a year — and that the trial, with 8 witnesses still to be examined and the next date fixed for April 17, 2026, was unlikely to conclude in the near future, led the court to conclude that no useful purpose would be served by continued custody. "From the above facts, it can be concluded that the chances of conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody."

Bail Conditions Sufficient to Address State's Apprehensions

The State had raised apprehensions regarding the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses and re-offending. The court addressed these by imposing a structured set of conditions: regular attendance at the trial court on every date; no tampering with prosecution evidence or hamper to investigation; no inducement, threat, or promise to any witness; and no travel outside India without prior court permission. The court noted that the State remained at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of any violation.

The High Court allowed the bail application and directed release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Date of Decision: March 13, 2026