( 2025:HHC:22612 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 979 of 2025 Decided on.: 11.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Surinder Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy -State Advocate General Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner Surinder Kumar, being in custody since 17.10.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS) originating from the FIR No. 139 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una [H.P.], under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 2 - the NDPS Act) and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case of petitioner, as set up, by Learned Counsel, is that that the bail petitioner has been arrested by the Police of Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, on 17.10.2023 in FIR No.139 of 2023, registered at Police Station under Sections 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case set up is that on 17.10.2023, the police party while on traffic checking noticed a motorcycle Splendor bearing No. HP72A-2979 with one rider. On noticing the police, the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] became perplex. On being asked by the police, he disclosed his name as Surinder Kumar-applicant/accused. The bag containing the Heroin/Chitta, weighing 5.65 grams was recovered from the bag, being carried by the bail petitioner (Surinder Kumar) herein. 2(i). Petitioner has also moved a bail application before Learned Special Judge-I, Una, which was ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 3 - rejected on 7.2.2024, [Annexure P-2] and thereafter before this Court, bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 489 of 2024, which was dismissed on 5.4.2024 [Annexure P-3] and thereafter petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP(Clr.) No. 106667 of 2024 [Annexure P-4] and Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same on 24.09.2024 with the liberty to the petitioner that in case trial does not conclude within six months from today, the petitioner would be entitled to renew his request. The order as detailed here-in-below. 1. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The special leave petition is accordingly, dismissed. 2. However, in the event the trial does not conclude within six months from today, the petitioner would be entitled to renew his request. 3. Pending application[s], if any, shall stand disposed of. 2(ii). It is averred that petitioner [Surinder Kumar] had thereafter filed an application for regular bail before the Special Judge-I, Una, bearing No. 88 of 2025 which was also dismissed on 20.03.2025 [Annexure P-5]. ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 4 - 2(iii). It is averred that petitioner has participated in the investigation and investigation is complete and the police has presented the Challan-Final Police Report before the concerned Court and the trial has commenced but at a slow pace. It is averred that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 2(iv). Case of the petitioner-accused is that, he has been falsely implicated. It is averred that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the accusation and he has been wrongly and falsely implicated with alleged contraband. Bail petitioner has furnished an undertaking that he abide by all the terms and conditions as will be imposed by this Court. Bail petitioner has averred that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not flee away from investigation and trial. It is averred that personal liberty of petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could neither be curtailed or taken away by way of ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 5 - penalty by prolonging the detention by presuming the guilt against the petitioner. Instant bail petition has been filed by bail petitioner, through his mother with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail. PROCEEDINGS IN INSTANT MATTER: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 02.05.2025, the State Authorities have furnished the Status Report dated 20.05.2025 on Instructions of SHO, Police Station Gagret, Distirct Una, pointing out factual matrix, completion of investigation, filing of Challan and the commencement of trial. On query by this Court, Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned State Counsel, on instructions states that total 23 PWs are to be examined by the prosecution in instant case and at present only 5 PWs have been examined as yet. 3(ii). Perusal of the Status Report, indicates the sequence of events, narrating that bail petitioner has been arrested by the Police of Police Station Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, on 17.10.2023 in FIR No.139 of 2023, registered at Police Station under ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 6 - Sections 21, 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case set up is that on 17.10.2023, the police party while on traffic checking noticed a motorcycle Splendor bearing No. HP72A-2979 with one rider. On noticing the police, the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] became perplex. On being asked by the police, he disclosed his name as Surinder Kumar-applicant/accused. The bag containing the Heroin/Chitta, weighing 5.65 grams was recovered from the bag, being carried by the bail petitioner (Surinder Kumar) herein. In this background, Status Report, has been filed by the State Authorities, with the prayer for dismissing of the bail petition. Status Report indicates that investigation is complete and now the Challan-Final Police Report has been presented before jurisdictional Court and Learned State Counsel states that out of 23 PWs, the prosecution has examined 5 PWs as yet. 4. Heard Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Learned ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 7 - Counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 5. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail is to be granted where the allegations are frivolous or groundless and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 8 - towards the accusation. However, depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial and the character, past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. 5(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in the light of broad-parameters referred to above. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE: ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 9 - 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record as is borne out from Status Report(s), this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar], is entitled to enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:- NO PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE BAIL PETITIONER: 6(i). Perusal of Status Report indicate that the contraband weighing 5.65 gm. of Heroin-Chitta was allegedly recovered from bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar]. Admittedly, the alleged contraband falls within the ambit of Intermediate Quantity in instant case and therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not applicable in the instant case. 6(ii). Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that once bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] was apprehended by police leading to alleged recovery of contraband weighing 5.65 gm. of Heroin/Chitta, as in cloth parcel. So ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 10 - far as the accusation under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the same is to be examined, tested and proved during the trial, in accordance with law. Merely, on the basis of accusation, the presumption of guilt cannot be inferred so as to prolong the incarceration and nothing more is to be recovered from the petitioner, in the facts of instant case. INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 7. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:- “11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 11 - punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 25. The provisions of Cr PC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 12 - right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under: "We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 13 - he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge- sheeted by the police." REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL: 8. While dealing with the concept of bail and the right of an accused for speedy trial and deprivation thereof curtails the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 14 - titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, as under:- “18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over- arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 15 - to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.” BAIL NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY WAY OF PENALTY: ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 9. While dealing with a matter relating to prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial and right of liberty to be sacrosanct right and while deprecating that the bail is not to be withheld as punishment so as to operate de hors the principle that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under :- “49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor. ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 16 - 52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus: “10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: “What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: “I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial”” 53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. 55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 17 - is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.” 10. While adjudicating the claim for bail, even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS Act], the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No._____of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter has mandated that fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions, in the following terms:- ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 18 - “13. We had also reiterated the well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions.” PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 11. While reiterating the grant of bail, despite statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be of paramount importance and action of prolonging the incarceration so as to make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated by granting bail, in the following terms:- “13. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that this Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently emphasized that prolonged incarceration of an accused ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 19 - awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their right to personal liberty. Even statutory embargoes on the grant of bail must yield when weighed against the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in cases where such incarceration extends over an unreasonably long period without conclusion of trial. 17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the settled principles that a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention. The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial. 18. Striking a balance between these considerations and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal with the following directions: f. The Petitioner shall thereafter be released on bail on 01.02.2025, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; ......” Prolonged detention of petitioner, in facts of this case, shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 20 - trial. Detention of the petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial of bail shall certainly violate the principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception”. Even, the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and still considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial. Therefore, in view of the mandate of law, the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight and the same is accordingly accepted. PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 12. Learned State Counsel has opposed the claim for bail on the ground that as per the Status Report, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, who has been involved in two other cases i.e. [i] F.I.R No. 68/2021 dated 21.04.2021 under Section 21, 29, 8C-61-85 of the Act at Police Station Amb, District Una and; [ii] F.I.R No. 03/2023 dated 2.1.2023 under Section 21-61-85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Amb, District Una, in both of which after ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 21 - completion of investigation, the challan- final police report stand filed and matter is fixed for prosecution evidence and in both the petition the petitioner has been bailed out. Based on above criminal antecedents, the petition is opposed in instant case. 12(i). Before analyzing the contention of the Learned State Counsel it is necessary to have a recap of the mandate of law, in broader sense, as to whether the past criminal antecedents are relevant and in what circumstances and extent thereof and in what circumstances and to what extent and while considering the claim of an accused for bail, which are detailed here-in-below. 12(ii). While negativating the plea that the past criminal antecedents {i.e. 36 criminal cases of serious nature} cannot solely be the ground for denying bail or in interfering with the bail order granted by a Court, when, an accused was undergoing incarceration coupled with the fact that no cogent material was placed on record revealing that during bail there ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 22 - is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice, has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashidi versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 382. 12(iii). While granting bail to an accused having criminal antecedents, who was facing incarceration for 7 months and when, no prima-facie accusation or reasonable grounds existed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648. Further despite the past criminal antecedents, benefit of bail, was granted by applying the principle that accused is presumed to be innocent and merely in the guise of pending cases, the presumption of guilt could not be inferred and when, the accused is facing incarceration for long, as has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 852. ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 23 - This principle has been reiterated in Ayub Khan versus State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763. Moreover, the pendency of other criminal cases cannot be invoked for denying bail, when, no prima facie case exists and prolonged incarceration was writ large, in Prem Prakash versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 13. Status Report filed by State Authorities has neither pointed out cogent and convincing material revealing adversarial circumstances that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded, by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE : ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 24 - 14. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material on record to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In absence of any material, the plea for bail deserves to be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT: 15. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail orders, in later part of this order. CONCLUSION: 16. In the facts of instant case, the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 25 - firstly, prima facie prosecution story appears to be highly doubtful and improbable at this stage as discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2023 and is undergoing incarceration for about one year and nine months; and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time when out of total 23 PWs only 5 have been examined as yet; and fourthly, the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner ; and fifthly, an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty ; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the State ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 26 - Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that petitioner has misused liberty granted to him earlier; and tenthly, once the State Authorities have adequate safeguards by moving the Courts for cancellation of bail in-case of violation of any concession- liberty granted earlier and the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial therefore, in these circumstances, the past criminal antecedents or pendency of other cases as discussed above cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, so as to deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and lastly, in order to safeguard the interest of State vis-à-vis the right of petitioner, this Court imposes stringent condition in this order and in case of any violation of or misuse of the concession-liberty, the State Authority can seek cancellation of the concession extended to the petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 27 - and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law, referred to above, the claim of the petitioner [Surinder Kumar] for enlargement on bail carries weight, in the peculiar fact-situation of this case, as discussed above. DIRECTIONS: 17. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law and the reasons recorded hereinabove, and in the peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [ Surinder Kumar] on bail, subject to the observance of following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.75,000/- {Rs Seventy Five Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar bond amount each, to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court concerned; (ii) Petitioner shall undertake and shall also appear on every date of trial hereinafter; ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 28 - (iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order; (iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ; (v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court; (vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11.00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour; (vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court; (viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner; (ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case; (x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises; (xi) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 29 - order or any condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after; (xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.; 18. Observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove. 19. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court. ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 30 - 20. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Una, District Una for information; with a direction to intimate the SHO, of Village Nandpur, Ward No.3, Post Office Nndpur, District Una to keep an update on good conduct and behaviour of the bail petitioner [Surinder Kumar] in terms of this order. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 11th July, 2025 (tm) ( 2025:HHC:22612 ) - 31 -