The Section 483 BNSS Does Not Override Section 37 NDPS principle was firmly reiterated by the Himachal Pradesh High Court while dismissing four connected bail applications arising from a commercial quantity narcotics case.
The Court held that the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be invoked to dilute the statutory embargo imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The bail petitions were filed under Section 483 BNSS by Shahi Mahatma, Nishant Chauhan, Deepak Sharma, and Hitesh Thakur in connection with FIR No. 50 of 2024 registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla.
The matter was heard and decided by Justice Virender Singh of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Prosecution Case Based on Commercial Quantity Recovery
The prosecution case originated from secret information received by the police on 18 September 2024 regarding transportation of heroin from Shimla towards Rohru. Acting on the information, the police intercepted a taxi near Kharapathar.
Though the vehicle search initially yielded nothing, a personal search of the suspect Muddasir Ahmad Mochi resulted in recovery of 468.380 grams of heroin concealed in his undergarments.
The recovered contraband squarely fell within the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
During interrogation, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi allegedly disclosed the involvement of Shahi Mahatma as a key organiser in an interstate narcotics network sourcing heroin from Delhi, Karnal, and Kashmir and distributing it in Himachal Pradesh.
Investigation Points Towards Organised Drug Network
The investigation revealed alleged financial transactions between the accused persons through multiple bank accounts, some opened in the name of co accused.
Mobile phone data, call detail records, and WhatsApp chats were relied upon to show coordination in procurement and distribution of heroin.
According to the prosecution, the applicants were not casual users but active participants in the sale and circulation of narcotics, forming part of an organised drug trafficking syndicate operating across state boundaries.
Defence Arguments Under Section 483 BNSS
The applicants argued that no contraband was recovered from their personal possession and that their implication was primarily based on disclosure statements and documentary evidence.
It was contended that the trial court had already discharged them from offences under Section 27A NDPS Act, and therefore, the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act stood diluted.
Parity was also claimed with certain co-accused who had been granted bail by the Special Judge, Shimla.
In the case of Hitesh Thakur, it was submitted that his earlier bail had been cancelled only due to non-appearance and not on merits.
Reliance was placed on recent Supreme Court decisions to argue that bail should be granted where the prosecution’s evidence is circumstantial in nature.
State Emphasises Statutory Bar Under NDPS Act
The State opposed the bail applications by stressing that once a commercial quantity is involved, the Court is bound by the mandatory conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act.
It was argued that the gravity of the offence, the scale of financial transactions, and the organised nature of the alleged drug trade ruled out any indulgence at the bail stage.
The prosecution further contended that the release of the accused could lead to tampering with evidence and influence over witnesses.
High Court on Section 483 BNSS and Section 37 NDPS
While analysing the matter, the High Court categorically held that Section 483 BNSS does not override Section 37 NDPS.
Justice Virender Singh observed that procedural provisions under the BNSS cannot dilute or bypass the substantive statutory restrictions imposed by a special law like the NDPS Act.
The Court reiterated that the expression reasonable grounds under Section 37 requires a degree of satisfaction higher than a prima facie view.
At the bail stage, the material on record, including financial trails and digital evidence, was sufficient to indicate active involvement of the applicants.
On the issue of parity, the Court noted that earlier bail orders passed by the Special Judge had failed to consider Section 37 NDPS Act and therefore could not form the basis for claiming parity.
An illegal or erroneous order, the Court observed, does not create a right in favour of another accused.
Bail Applications Dismissed
Concluding the matter, the High Court held that none of the applicants satisfied the twin conditions mandated under Section 37 NDPS Act.
The Court found no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants were not guilty, nor could it be said that they would refrain from similar offences if released.
Accordingly, all four bail applications were dismissed. The Court clarified that the observations were confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial on merits.
The ruling once again underscores that Section 483 BNSS does not override Section 37 NDPS, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity narcotics.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shahi Mahatma and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh
- FIR: No. 50 of 2024
- Police Station: Kotkhai, District Shimla
- Statutes Involved: Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act, Section 483 BNSS
- Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Bench: Justice Virender Singh
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…
