2025:HHC:325 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.2479 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.01.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chaman Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely, Chaman Lal, who is behind the bars for more than nine months, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 42 of 2024, dated 13.03.2024, under Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the NDPS Act, registered at police Station, West, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:325 2 2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 13.03.2024, police after having received secret information that person namely, Chaman Lal, i.e petitioner herein indulges in illegal trade of narcotics, intercepted vehicle bearing registration No.HP-11-A-8804 being driven by the petitioner near Boileauganj road and allegedly recovered eight small packets containing charas/cannabis in the presence of independent witnesses. On weighment, total weight of the contraband recovered from the eight packets was found to be 40.97 grams of opium and 20.98 grams of charas/cannabis. Besides above, police also recovered 456 tablets (Kamini pills) weighing 122.7 grams. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, and arrested the bail petitioner. Since challan in the case stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the 2025:HHC:325 3 gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse status report, learned Additional Advocate General contends that though in past no case has been registered against the petitioner, but there is overwhelming evidence suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is indulging in illegal trade of narcotics and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected out rightly. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather there is sufficient material adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind the bars for approximately nine months and from his conscious possession intermediate quantity of contraband allegedly came to be recovered, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered. No doubt, petitioner herein has indulged in heinous crime having adverse impact on the 2025:HHC:325 4 society, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that bail petitioner is behind the bars for a considerable time without his being held guilty. 5. Moreover, rigours of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the present case for the reason that an intermediate quantity of contraband allegedly came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner. Though, it came to be vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent-State that bail petitioner is a drug peddler but admittedly at present, there is nothing to prove aforesaid charge. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2025:HHC:325 5 7. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the 2025:HHC:325 6 appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 10. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 2025:HHC:325 7 petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 14. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court 2025:HHC:325 8 shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge January 02, 2025 (shankar)