IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 907 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raju Chauhan ...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. Parth Sagar & Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Raju Chauhan, who is behind the bars since 04.12.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 77 of 2025, dated 04.12.2025, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Harish Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 03.12.2025, police party present near Naina Tikkar received a secret information at 10.15 PM, that one white-coloured Alto car coming from Oachghat side and persons sitting in the aforesaid car were indulged in illegal trade of narcotics and in the event of checking of the car, huge quantity of contraband can be recovered. Police, on the basis of aforesaid information, proceeded towards the location shared by secret informer and stopped white-coloured Alto Car for checking. On checking, police allegedly recovered 6.56 grams of chitta from the dash board of the car in the presence of independent witnesses. At the time of alleged recovery of aforesaid quantity of contraband, two persons namely, Raju Chauhan i.e. present bail petitioner and Sahil Mehta were sitting in the car. 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 since then, bail petitioner is behind the bars, whereas co-accused Sahil Mehta already stands enlarged on bail. Though, petitioner had also applied for grant of bail before the learned trial Court, but same was dismissed on the ground that in past, two cases under NDPS Act stand registered against the petitioner. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing 3 remains to be recovered from him, petitioner 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. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, states 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. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. Learned Deputy Advocate General further states that in past two cases under NDPS Act already stand registered against the petitioner, which clearly establishes factum with regard to his being drug peddler. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner in the presence of the independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that one of the co-accused, namely Sahil Mehta already stands enlarged on bail, 4 coupled with the fact that quantity recovered from the car is intermediate, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. 5. True it is that in past two cases stand registered against the petitioner under NDPS Act, but quantity of contraband recovered in aforesaid cases nowhere suggests that bail petitioner is a drug peddler, rather that suggests that bail petitioner is a consumer, who requires immediate medical assistance. Otherwise also, no purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars, rather he is required to be taken to rehabilitation centre immediately, so that he brought back to the main streams at the earliest. Mere factum of registration of two cases under NDPS Act in past, may not be a ground to reject the bail, especially when guilt, if any, in aforesaid cases of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution. The petitioner is behind the bars for more than five months and till date, prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness. Prosecution proposes to examine 39 witnesses to prove the guilt of the petitioner, meaning thereby considerable time is likely to be consumed in the conclusion of the trial, and if during aforesaid period petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5 6. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his /her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or may again indulge in such activities, can be best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 7. 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. 8. 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 appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 6 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: 7 (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. 12. 12. 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. 13. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge June 04,2026 (shankar)