Addiction Over Peddling: Himachal HC Grants Bail To Repeat Offender In NDPS Case

Prioritizing rehabilitation over prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a repeat offender found with intermediate quantities of heroin, ruling that the quantity recovered suggested personal addiction rather than commercial peddling. In a significant application of the 'bail not jail' principle, the Court held that even for repeat offenders, the rigors of restrictive bail conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 do not apply with full force when only intermediate quantities of contraband are involved.

In a decisive ruling, Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh emphasized the need to balance judicial discretion with the possibility of reform for drug addicts. The Court was hearing a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by an individual who had been arrested for the third time in two years for possession of heroin.

Judicial Discretion and the Reformative Approach

The Court noted that while the petitioner had two previous cases registered against him under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, all instances involved intermediate quantities. The bench observed that the petitioner’s claim of being an addict rather than a peddler was supported by the nature of the recoveries.

Referring to the judicial trend against prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the Court cited Union of India vs. K.N. Nazeeb and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Another to underscore that the culmination of trial often takes significant time. It further invoked the 'golden thread' of Indian criminal jurisprudence—'bail, not jail'—as established in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others v. State of Punjab ( "AIR 1980 SC 1632": 1980 CaseBase(SC) 263) and followed in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement ( "AIR 2019 SC 4198": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2176). The Court also looked at the objectives of bail elucidated in Sanjay Chandra & Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and the general rule of granting bail as reiterated in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2018) 3 SCC 22 : AIR 2018 SC 980": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 879).

The Court has the following directions:

"i) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor intimidate, threaten or coerce the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case;

ii) That the petitioner shall put in appearance before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when directed;

iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without the express permission of the Court, he shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency;

iv) If the bail petitioner is found to be indulging in similar cases in the future and an FIR is registered against him under the NDPS Act, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled forthwith and the State shall also be at liberty to take steps for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner or send him for rehabilitation, if so required.

v)The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the State of Himachal Pradesh without the express permission of the Court and shall keep the Investigating Officer (I.O.), Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., informed about his whereabouts on a monthly basis."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Since the earlier cases pertain to 'intermediate' quantity and apparently the petitioner was himself addicted to the drugs, it would be in the interest of justice and fairplay that the discretion of bail is exercised in his favour, but subject to strict terms. He may be given a chance to reform himself. The quantity of drugs recovered from him on all the three occasions rule out his being a peddler."

Background

The petitioner was arrested on March 4, 2026, near Badahed Road after being found in possession of 9 grams of heroin (chitta). The prosecution opposed the bail, pointing to the petitioner’s past criminal record involving two other FIRs registered in 2025 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Mandi district. The State argued that the petitioner's modus operandi involved carrying small quantities to evade strict legal consequences.

However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery was of an 'intermediate' quantity and that the petitioner was a drug addict seeking self-consumption, not a commercial seller. The Court found merit in the argument that the repetitive recovery of small amounts pointed toward addiction. Given that the charge-sheet was filed in July 2026 and the trial would take time, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the release of the petitioner on a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two local sureties.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1702 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:44453
Case Title: Lokesh Kumar Bherwa v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Viplav Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anshuman Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lokender Kuthelria, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Chander Kant, I.O., PS Bhoranj.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 9461