Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 19.10.2026
Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to Prince Rana and Sudhanshu Soni in an NDPS case involving the recovery of 32.56 grams of heroin, while making clear that the order does not decide their guilt or innocence.
The case at a glance
Justice Rakesh Kainthla decided the connected bail petitions on 16 October 2026. The petitions arose from FIR No. 28 of 2026, registered at Baijnath Police Station in Kangra district under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution, police received information on 24 February 2026 that Prince Rana, Sudhanshu Soni and others were selling heroin from a house in Village Malehad. Officers recorded and forwarded the information to a superior officer before conducting a search. The search reportedly led to the recovery of a polythene packet containing 32.56 grams of heroin, concealed beneath a sofa-cum-bed.
The prosecution said both petitioners were present at the house when the recovery was made. It also relied on statements allegedly made during the investigation concerning the procurement and delivery of the substance. A forensic report confirmed that the recovered material was diacetylmorphine, commonly known as heroin.
Arguments before the Court
The petitioners denied the allegations and said they had been falsely implicated. Their counsel stressed that they were first-time accused, had no other FIRs registered against them, and that the police investigation had already concluded. The charge sheet had been filed on 24 April 2026, meaning further custodial interrogation was not required, they argued.
The State opposed bail, contending that the allegations concerned heroin sales and that the offence had serious consequences for society. It urged the Court not to show leniency.
Why the High Court granted bail
The Court considered established Supreme Court principles on bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence available at the preliminary stage, the possibility of absconding, the likelihood of witness interference, criminal antecedents and the need to protect the trial process.
While the Court found that the petitionersβ presence at the house during the alleged recovery created a prima facie case, it identified several factors favouring release:
- Quantity below the commercial threshold: The Court noted that the alleged recovery was less than a commercial quantity. Therefore, the stricter restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.
- No stated criminal history: The petitionersβ assertion that they were first offenders was not disputed by the State in its status report. The Court observed that first offenders should have an opportunity for reform and that unnecessary continued detention could expose them to hardened criminals.
- Local roots: Both petitioners were stated to be permanent residents of Kangra district. As this was not disputed, the Court found no substantial risk of absconding.
- Investigation complete: Since the police had completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, and did not claim that custodial interrogation remained necessary, the Court held that continued detention would serve no useful purpose.
The decision reflects the general bail principle that personal liberty should ordinarily be protected unless circumstances indicate a real risk of flight, interference with justice, witness intimidation or repetition of offences.
Bail terms imposed
Prince Rana and Sudhanshu Soni were each directed to furnish a bail bond of βΉ1,00,000 with one surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. Their release is subject to conditions intended to safeguard the proceedings:
- They must not intimidate witnesses or influence evidence.
- They must attend every hearing and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
- They cannot leave their present address for more than seven continuous days without providing details of the intended visit to the concerned SHO, police station and trial court.
- They must surrender any passports to the court.
- They must provide their mobile numbers and social-media contact details to the police and court, comply with notices sent through SMS, WhatsApp or social-media accounts, and report any change in these details within five days.
The Court also stated that the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.
What the order doesβand does notβdecide
This is a bail ruling, not a final verdict in the criminal case. The High Court expressly stated that its observations were limited to deciding the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the prosecution at trial.
The trial court will determine the allegations based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
The ruling shows that, even in narcotics cases, courts assess bail on the specific facts: the statutory quantity involved, the accusedβs prior record, their connection to the local community, the status of the investigation and the safeguards available to protect a fair trial.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply