2026:HHC:20000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM Nos. 807 and 794 of 2026 Date of Decision: 26.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 807 of 2026 Sahil Pojta @ Chinku ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 794 of 2026 Raj Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 807 of 2026 and Mr. K. S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 794 of 2026. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioners namely Sahil Pojta @ Chinku and Raj Sharma, who are behind the bars since 22.2.2026, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 56 of 2026:HHC:20000 2 2026 dated 22.2.2026, registered at Police Station Sadar, Solan District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 105 and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (In short “BNS”). 2. Pursuant to orders dated 8/12.5.2026 passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report and HC Jaivanti, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 22.2.2026, complainant Krishan Dutt Sharma, lodged a complaint in the Police Station Sadar Solan, alleging therein that one person i.e. deceased Kartik, S/o Sh. Dinesh had come to Solan to meet his sister, however, he never reached the room of his sister and as such, complainant and sister of the deceased lodged a missing report. During investigation, dead body of above named Kartik was found lying near Damrog. Police got the postmortem of body of the deceased Kartik conducted, wherein it came to be transpired that deceased died due to overdose of Chitta. Complainant further alleged that on 22.2.2026, he came to know that on 19.2.2026, deceased had met Sujal whom, he had handed over one carry bag containing some cloths. Deceased asked Sujal to wait till he comes back after meeting one Saurav Manta, but thereafter, he did not come. Complainant alleged that he has suspicion that aforesaid Saurav Manta and Sahil Pojta (present bail petitioner), provided chitta and other drugs to deceased Kartik, who subsequently died on account of overdose of the 2026:HHC:20000 3 same. In the afore background, afore FIR came to be lodged against the co- accused Saurav Manta, Rajat Lalta and present bail petitioners. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Manoj Pathak and Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, vehemently argued that petitioners herein have been falsely implicated. They submitted that save and except CCTV footage, wherein petitioners herein can be seen travelling in a car, which was allegedly stopped near rain shelter and thereafter deceased Kartik along with Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta, came to rain shelter and handed over some amount to the occupants of the car, including the petitioners, no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced on record qua involvement of the bail petitioners. Moreover, there is no evidence with regard to sale and purchase of narcotics, if any, by the occupants of the car, but merely on the basis of transfer of some money in the bank account of petitioner Sahil Pojta, he along with Raj Sharma, came to be named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that though there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner indulged in illegal trade of narcotics but even otherwise they being first offenders, deserve to be enlarged on bail especially when they have already suffered for more than ninety days. They further submitted that petitioners 2026:HHC:20000 4 are local residents of the area and as such, shall always remain present for investigation and during trial or as and when called by the investigating agency 5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law stated that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency, rather need to be dealt with in accordance with law. Mr. Kahol, submitted that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioners were occupants of the car, which had stopped near rain shelter and thereafter, money was exchanged inter-se occupants of the car, deceased Kartik and his friends Saurav Manta and Rajat Pojta. He further contended that bail petitioners are drug peddlers and on account of their having supplied chitta to deceased Kartik, he lost his life and as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the bail petitioners, who have been regularly indulging in such activities having adverse impact on the society. He submitted that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioners may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that in an unfortunate incident, one person namely Kartik lost his life on account of overdoes of 2026:HHC:20000 5 chitta. As per own case of the prosecution, co-accused Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta, had specific knowledge with regard to death of the deceased Kartik on account of overdose of Chitta, but yet they took no steps to disclose such fact to other persons namely Priyanshu and Varun, who at the relevant time, were also present in the room where both these persons had consumed chitta. Had co- accused Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta taken immediate steps to move the deceased to hospital, life of deceased Kartik could have been saved, but question which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is “whether bail petitioners herein can be said to have any role in the unfortunate death of Kartik or not?” As per status report, one car was seen in CCTV, which stopped near the rain shelter and thereafter, co-accused Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta along with deceased Kartik reached on the spot and some money was exchanged inter-se them as well as occupants of the car. Admittedly, both the petitioners were sitting in the car, as detailed herein above. It is none of the case of the prosecution that CCTV recording suggests sale of chitta to Saurav Manta, Rajat Lalta and Kartik, but since some amount came to be transferred in the account of the bail petitioner Sahil Pojta, he alongwith other occupant of the car namely Rajat Sharma, came to be named in the FIR on the allegation that Chitta, which ultimately caused death of young boy namely Kartik, was supplied by the petitioners. 2026:HHC:20000 6 7. Having scanned entire material adduced on record coupled with the fact that in past, no case stands registered against the petitioners, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Manoj Pathak and Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners that merely on the basis of CCTV footage and transfer of money, if any, in the bank account of one of the co accused, guilt of the petitioners especially under Section 105 of BNS, cannot not be concluded. 8. “Whether amount, if any, transferred in the bank account of the petitioners was on account of sale, if any, made by him of Chitta to Saurav Manta, Rajat Lalta and Kartik” is a question to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution. There is no mention in the status report with regard to quantity of contraband allegedly sold by the petitioners to the deceased as well as two friends namely Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta. Moreover, this Court finds that no case under the NDPS Act, has been registered against the petitioners as well as other occupants of the car, who allegedly sold chitta to the deceased as well as Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta. Factum with regard to sale of chitta, if any, by the occupants of the car to deceased Kartik, Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Mere transfer of amount, if any in the bank account of the petitioner Sahil may not be sufficient to conclude 2026:HHC:20000 7 his guilt, rather for that purpose, prosecution is required to lead cogent and convincing evidence, which at present is not available on record. 9. Though at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General, made available statement of bail petitioners given to the police under Section 23 (2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, to state that both the accused categorically disposed factum of their having supplied chitta to the deceased as well as other co-accused, Saurav Manta and Rajat Lalta, but aforesaid statement, if any, made by the bail petitioners cannot be used against them. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioners to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, but taking note of the aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioners incarcerate in jail for an 2026:HHC:20000 8 indefinite period during trial, especially when their guilt is yet to be established 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 2026:HHC:20000 9 secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each, with two local sureties in the like 2026:HHC:20000 10 amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: a. They shall make themselves 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. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 18. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 19. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the main case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone. The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 20. The petitioners are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. May 26, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge