2026:HHC:8062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.305 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Sh. Vikas Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Piar Singh, PS Shimla West, District Shimla, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Vikas Kumar, who is behind the bars since 28.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.11/26, dated 22.01.2026, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent/State has filed status and ASI Piar Singh, PS Shimla West, District Shimla, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on the intervening night of 21/22.01.2026, at about 02:25 a.m., 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:8062 -2- Police stopped one vehicle bearing No.T0525HP0144F, being driven by the petitioner herein, for checking near Shoghi. Since occupants of the car, including the petitioner got perplexed and started making excuses, Police thought it proper to effect search of the occupants as well as of the vehicle. Allegedly, Police after having associated independent witnesses, recovered 9.480 grams of heroin from the cigarette box lying near the gear box. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, Police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, and arrested all the accused named in the FIR. Save and except bail petitioner Vikas Kumar, remaining co-accused namely Rahul Kumar and Vikas Bhardwaj, already stand enlarged on bail. It emerges from the record that bail petition field by the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected on the ground that he had fled from the spot and thereafter, could be apprehended after five days of lodging of FIR. 4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail 2026:HHC:8062 -3- 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 since petitioner has committed heinous crime, having adverse impact on the society, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. He states that otherwise also, petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused Rahul Kumar and Gaurav Bhardwaj, on account of his having fled from the spot after registration of FIR. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner herein has been falsely implicated because intermediate quantity of contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the occupants of the car in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is first-time offender and rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, coupled with the fact that co-accused Rahul Kumar and Gaurav Bhardwaj, who were also occupants of the car, already stand enlarged on bail, this Court is persuaded to 2026:HHC:8062 -4- consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. 7. Though status report reveals that after lodging of FIR, petitioner herein fled from the spot, but learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse documents annexed with the petition, submitted that immediately after registration of case, he applied for anticipatory bail, but since same was not granted to him, he, of his own, surrendered after five days of lodging of FIR. Otherwise also, this Court finds that on account of petitioner’s fleeing from the spot, separate FIR bearing No.12/2026 dated 23.01.2026, already stands registered against him. Though Investigating Officer, present in Court, submitted that petitioner has not surrendered of his own, rather, he was arrested while he was going to his house, but material adduced on record by the petitioner suggests that he, before surrendering himself, intimated the Police authorities with regard to his intention to surrender and besides above, he also submitted complaint with regard to bias of the Police authorities, who allegedly with a view to save one Police official, who was one of the occupants, attempted to implicate the petitioner in a false case. There is another important fact that offending vehicle was owned and possessed by Rahul Kumar i.e. Police official, but since same was being driven by petitioner at relevant time, he also came to be named in the FIR. Though case 2026:HHC:8062 -5- at hand is to be decided by the Court below in totality of facts, but having regard to the aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, coupled with the fact that rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, which is otherwise not permissible in law. 8. 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. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. 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 2026:HHC:8062 -6- Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid 2026:HHC:8062 -7- 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. 13. 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, present petition is allowed and the 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 Superintendent Jail, Kaithu, Shimla, 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. 14. 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. 2026:HHC:8062 -8- 15. 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. 16. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the 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. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20th March, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi) RAJEEV RATURI Digitally signed by RAJEEV RATURI Date: 2026.03.20 17:12:57 +0530