Himachal HC denies NDPS bail: 91 grams on him, 58 kg on his co-accused, and Section 37 applies
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that the disclosure by the co-accused was admissible because it led police to the petitioner, treated him as an abettor of a commercial quantity, and ruled that delay in trial cannot stand in for the twin conditions of Section 37.
Police found 91 grams of poppy straw in Jinder Pal’s room. In the house of the man who named him, they found 58.212 kilograms. On 4 November 2026 the Himachal Pradesh High Court refused him regular bail, holding that the stricter bail rule for commercial quantities applied to him.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla decided the petition at Shimla. Jinder Pal is accused in FIR No. 229 of 2026, registered on 24 July 2026 at Police Station Nalagarh, Solan, under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Two searches, twelve days apart
According to the prosecution, the police received secret information on 24 July 2026 that Sehajpreet Singh was selling poppy straw from his house. They searched it with two witnesses present and recovered three bags of 38 polythene packets each, weighing 19.420 kg, 19.372 kg and 19.420 kg.
Sehajpreet was arrested. In interrogation, the status report says, he disclosed that Jinder Pal was involved. He said he had bought 70 kg of poppy straw and 2 kg of uncut poppy plants, of which 20 kg of straw and the plants belonged to the petitioner.
The police also traced a transfer of Rs 43,000 that the petitioner is said to have sent to the account of a person named Lucky. On 5 August 2026 they searched the petitioner’s room and recovered 91 grams of poppy straw. He was arrested, the investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet is before the trial court.
What each side argued
Mr Prikshit Rathour, for the petitioner, said Jinder Pal was innocent and had been falsely implicated on the strength of a co-accused’s statement, which is inadmissible. The investigation was over, he added, and keeping the petitioner in custody served no purpose. The petition also said he was the sole earner and that his ailing parents depended on him.
Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, said the co-accused was caught with a commercial quantity and had named the petitioner, and that 91 grams was recovered from him. The offence was heinous, he argued, and the petitioner would offend again if released.
Why the co-accused statement counted
The judge first set out the general bail parameters from Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025). He also noted the Supreme Court’s rule that bail, not jail, is the norm except where the gravity of the offence points the other way.
The factors the court listed include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment on conviction, the danger of absconding, the likelihood of the offence being repeated and the risk of witnesses being influenced.
On the statement, he relied on Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan. There the Supreme Court held that information from accused persons that leads to the discovery of another accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Sehajpreet’s statement, the court held, led the police to the petitioner, who was then found with poppy straw. The submission that it was inadmissible was not accepted.
The court added that a commercial quantity was recovered from the co-accused, a small quantity from the petitioner, and financial transactions were found. Taken together, these prima facie showed his involvement.
Section 37 and the twin conditions
The judge held that the petitioner was involved in abetting a commercial quantity, so the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied. Bail is possible only if the Public Prosecutor has had a chance to oppose it and the court finds
“reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty” (para 14)
The accused must also be unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court extracted Union of India v. Niyazuddin, State of Kerala v. Rajesh and Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan to show that reasonable grounds means more than prima facie grounds.
It also cited Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh and State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, which say bail cannot be granted without the Section 37 finding and that the two conditions are cumulative.
Applying them, the judge found that the prosecution had collected enough material to connect the petitioner prima facie with the crime. Nothing on record showed he would not offend again if released, and the court concluded that he
“has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down in Section 37” (para 20)
Delay in trial was no answer
The petitioner had argued that the trial was progressing slowly. The court answered with Union of India v. Vijin K. Varghese (2025), where the Supreme Court said prolonged incarceration cannot justify bail unless the Section 37 conditions are satisfied. It also cited Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, decided on 7 November 2025.
The court held that it is impermissible to grant bail on the ground of delay alone when the Section 37 requirement has not been met (para 23).
Order
No other point was urged. The petition was dismissed, and the court said its observations are confined to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case.