NDPS | Conscious Possession Presumed When Contraband Found in Private Vehicle with Known Companions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

In a detailed judgment Himachal Pradesh High Court  held that occupants of a private vehicle can be presumed to be in conscious possession of contraband, especially when they are known to each other and do not rebut the statutory presumptions under the NDPS Act. However, since the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, and considering the young age and reformative potential of the accused, the Court granted regular bail with strict conditions. The ruling was authored by Justice Rakesh Kainthla in the case titled Vanshika and Samarth Hatoch v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

“Once Possession Is Established, The Accused Must Prove It Was Not Conscious” — Presumptions Under Sections 35 and 54 Apply

The judgment arose from bail petitions filed by two individuals, Vanshika (23 years) and Samarth Hatoch (27 years), who were arrested after 249 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from a carry bag in their private vehicle. The incident occurred on 8th September 2025, when police intercepted the vehicle at Pungh Four Lane, District Mandi, and arrested both petitioners upon recovery of the contraband.

The Court held that the doctrine of "conscious possession" squarely applied, relying heavily on the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465. The High Court quoted the following passage with approval:

“Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop... They were known to each other, and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle... Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge.”

Applying this legal standard, the Court concluded that:

“Therefore, prima facie, the petitioners are to be treated in possession of the charas, and the burden is upon them under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act to prove that their possession was not conscious. There is nothing on record to establish this fact.”

The Court rejected the defence plea of false implication, declaring the claim of innocence as "not acceptable" in light of the unrebutted statutory presumptions.

“Section 37 NDPS Act Not Attracted for Intermediate Quantity” — Court Finds No Legal Bar to Bail on Merits

Despite holding that a prima facie offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was made out, the Court noted that the quantity involved—249 grams of charas—fell under the "intermediate quantity" category as per the law. Therefore, the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the Act, which apply to commercial quantities, were not attracted.

The Court stated:

“It is an intermediate quantity; hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.”

Thus, the High Court ruled that the bail petition could be considered on ordinary legal parameters, as laid down by the Supreme Court in multiple landmark decisions.

“A Reformative Approach Should Prevail When Accused Are Young, First-Time Offenders” — Court Highlights Need to Prevent Exposure to Hardened Criminals

Taking into account the ages of the petitioners, their lack of criminal antecedents, and the social context of their engagement, the Court leaned towards a reformative approach. Justice Kainthla warned that unnecessary prolonged detention of first-time offenders could do more harm than good, stating:

“They deserve a chance to reform themselves. Their continued detention in judicial custody would bleak their chance of reformation because they would come in contact with hardened criminals.”

The Court also noted that the petitioners were residents of Delhi, and the prosecution failed to rebut this assertion or prove any likelihood of absconding. Thus, the Court found no flight risk or imminent threat of tampering with evidence. Regarding the State’s apprehension that the accused might influence witnesses, the Court reasoned:

“This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions, and it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners.”

“Bail Orders Must Be Judicious, Not Mechanical” — High Court Applies Supreme Court’s Guidelines from Pinki and Brijmani Devi

Justice Kainthla extensively cited recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314, reaffirming the principles that must guide judicial discretion in bail matters. Relying also on Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Prahlad Singh Bhati, Ram Govind Upadhyay, and Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, the Court reiterated that bail should be granted based on contextual factors like the nature of the offence, character of the accused, severity of the punishment, and possibility of interference with the course of justice.

Citing Pinki’s case, the Court quoted: “Liberty of an individual is an invaluable right… While considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations... A prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons.”

The Court concluded that although the accusation was serious, the facts of the case did not justify prolonged incarceration before trial.

Bail Granted with Stringent Safeguards to Balance Individual Liberty and Public Interest

Ultimately, the Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to both petitioners, subject to a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 each and strict conditions including surrender of passports, disclosure of mobile numbers and social media accounts, and regular attendance before the trial court.

Justice Kainthla cautioned: “It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.”

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings, and would not affect the merits of the trial. The decision reflects a delicate judicial balance between enforcing anti-narcotics law and safeguarding individual liberty, especially where the legislative bar under Section 37 does not apply.

Date of Decision: 8th October 2025