2025:HHC:334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.2913 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.01.2025 _________________________________________________________ Sonu ...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. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, along with HC Deepak, No.163, Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. _________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely, Sonu, who is behind the bars since 09.10.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.87 of 2023, dated 09.10.2023, under Sections 20, 25, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Deepak, No.163, Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, has come present with the record. Record perused and returned. 2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 09.10.2023, Police intercepted vehicle bearing No.JK-14-J-0887 (Tata 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:334 -2- Punch) for checking at Deogran, District Kangra. Since occupants of the car after having seen the police got perplexed, police after having associated independent witnesses, conducted the search of the vehicle as well as occupants of the car. Allegedly, police recovered 1.072 kilogram of Charas from the dashboard of the car. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove and since then bail petitioner along with co-accused are behind bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial. 3. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He states that at the time of recovery, though petitioner herein was one of the occupant of the car, but he had no information with regard to transportation of contraband in the car, which admittedly was being driven by co-accused Ashok Kumar. Mr. Rathore further states that bare perusal of status report itself suggest that in past, no case stand registered against petitioner and as such, there is otherwise presumption that petitioner is not involved in transportation of contraband, allegedly recovered from the vehicle, detailed hereinabove. He further states that more than one year has passed, but till date, only 2025:HHC:334 -3- six prosecution witnesses out of seventeen have been examined, whereas two independent witnesses have already resiled. 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse record, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner had definite knowledge with regard to transportation of the contraband and he is part of the racket, which supplies contraband in the various parts of the State. He states that since six prosecution witnesses out of seventeen already stand examined and Court below has already the fixed the matter for recording the statement of remaining prosecution witnesses on 03.01.2025 and 04.01.2025, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial deserves to be rejected. He further states that in the event of petitioner’s 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. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. There is ample evidence 2025:HHC:334 -4- adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that at the time of interception of the car, detailed hereinabove, petitioner was one of the occupant of the car, from which admittedly commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, in the presence of individual witnesses. Since petitioner is an accused of heinous crime, having adverse impact upon the society, punishable under Sections 20, 25, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act, coupled with the fact that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the car in question, rigours of Section 37 of the Act are attracted. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act nowhere suggests that Court is estopped from considering the bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband. No doubt, bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act nowhere suggests that Court may not consider bail involving commercial quantity of contraband, but in that situation, Court beside affording opportunity of being heard to the public prosecutor, should be satisfied that petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he would not indulge in these activities. No doubt, in past, no case stands registered against petitioner under NDPS Act, but since there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in the presence of independent witnesses from the car, detailed hereinabove, in which petitioner was one of the occupant, this Court is not persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail at this stage. 2025:HHC:334 -5- 6. Similarly, this Court finds no force in the submission of Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner herein deserves to be granted bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, as in the case at hand, six prosecution witnesses already stand examined and for recording the statement of remaining prosecution witnesses, Court below has already fixed the matter on 03.01.2025 and 04.01.2025. There is nothing on record to suggest that on 03.01.2025 and 04.01.2025, there is no possibility in conclusion of prosecution evidence, rather, having perused record, this Court finds that trial Court has processed the case expeditiously and within a span of one year, it is nearing conclusion. As far as statement given by two independent witnesses is concerned, this Court need not to go into that aspect of the mater, because any finding qua the same may materially affect the trial. 7. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner invited attention of this Court to various judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, suggestive of the fact that that speedy trial is the right of the petitioner and no person can be left to incarcerate for indefinite period during trial. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law, rather, this Court has been consistently following the same, however, in the instant case, as has been recorded hereinabove, trial is nearing conclusion. Six prosecution witnesses already stand examined and for recording the statement of remaining witnesses, Court below has 2025:HHC:334 -6- already fixed the matter on two dates consecutively i.e. 03.01.2025 and 04.01.2025. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for last one year, coupled with the fact that only 11 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined and for that purpose, Court below has already fixed the matter in the month of January 2025, this Court hopes and trusts that Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably, on or before 28.02.2025. Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to render proper assistance on behalf of the prosecution, enabling the Court below to conclude the trial in terms of instant order passed by this Court. Needless to say, this Court on judicial as well as administrative sides, has been repeatedly advising the Courts below to conclude the trial of under trials on top most priority so that their freedom is not curtailed for an indefinite period. Registry is directed to apprise the Court below with regard to passing of the instant order. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge January 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)