IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 890 of 2026 Date of Decision: 4.6.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Vijaya Tamang ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Mohan Singh, Ravinder Thakur and Shamul Kaushal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Vijaya Tamang, who is behind the bars since 14.6.2024, has 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.162/2024, dated 14.6.2024, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Sadar, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Pursuant to order dated 20.5.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and HC Ram Chander, PS Kullu, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that that on 13.6.2024 at about 9:30 pm, while police patrolling party was present near Chhaatan Seri, it noticed suspicious activities of one person standing outside the Chinese Food Shop. After having seen the police, afore person threw his bag on the road and attempted to run away from the spot, however he was apprehended by the police officials. In the afore background, police deemed it necessary to cause search of the afore person, who subsequently disclosed his name to be Vijaya Tamang, and allegedly recovered 2kgs of charas from his bag. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the commercial quantity of contraband by the above named person, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, as detailed herein above and arrested him and since then, he is behind the bars. Allegedly, bail petitioner during investigation disclosed to the police that there was one lady namely Kanchi Maya with him, at the time of recovery of charas, but she succeeded in fleeing from the spot. Police also registered case against above named Kanchi Maya, but she is absconding. Though challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but till date, not even single prosecution witness has been examined and as such, bail petitioner has 3 approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial . 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 the record, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits 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 indulge in these activities again. Learned Deputy Advocate General further states that since one of the co-accused namely Kanchi Maya is absconding, there is every likelihood of bail petitioner absconding in the event of his being granted bail and in the situation, it would be difficult for prosecution to secure his presence for trial. 5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered 4 from his conscious possession in presence of the independent witnesses, however having taken note of the fact that more than two years have passed after registration of the case and till date, prosecution has not been able to examine even single witness, this Court is persuaded to consider prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. In the case at hand, 18 witnesses remain to be examined, meaning thereby considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial. Since for the last two years, prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness, this Court has reason to presume and believe that considerable time shall be taken by the prosecution to examine all the witnesses and in that case, if petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail during afore period, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also be violative of Section 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. No doubt, rigours of Section 37 of the Act, are attracted in the present case, but bare perusal of provisions contained under Section 37 of Act ibid, nowhere suggests that no bail can be granted in cases involving commercial quantity, rather in such cases, court after affording due opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor can proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated 5 and in the event of bail being granted, he will not indulge in such activities again. 7. Though in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any circumstance indicative of the fact that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, but having taken note of the fact that there is no case registered against the petitioner in the past, this Court has reason to presume and believe that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he would not indulge in these activities again. 8. Question, which needs determination in the case at hand is “whether the provisions of Section 37 of the Act can be construed to have same efficacy throughout the trial notwithstanding the period of custody of the accused, especially, when it is weighed against their fundamental right to have expeditious disposal of trial.” Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have categorically held that speedy trial is right guaranteed to the accused and violation thereof, if any, amounts to violation of the fundamental right, especially Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be 6 in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this court to judgment dated 29.3.2023 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1904 of 2023, Sunil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, submits that petition having been filed by bail petitioner deserves to be allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that petitioner in the aforesaid case, was behind bars for more than 1½ years and trial was yet to be concluded and Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, proceeded to enlarge the petitioner in that case on bail. Learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to the judgments dated 4.3.2023 and 15.3.2023 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 62 and 570 of 2023, titled Puran Chand v. State of HP and 7 Prem chand v. State of HP., to state that in similar facts and circumstances, coordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court enlarged the accused on bail on the ground of inordinate delay. Having perused aforesaid judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court finds that in both the cases, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the accused, but yet court having taken note of the fact that they were behind the bars for more than three years, proceeded to enlarge them on bail. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions. 12. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate his plea for enlarging the petitioner on bail, has referred to order dated 12.10.2020 passed by a three judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in 8 Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was enlarged on bail, for having been in detention for 2 years and 7 months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to be examined and last witness was examined in February, 2020 and, thereafter, there was no further progress in the trial. 13. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Crl) No. 1904 of 2023 titled Sunil Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29.3.2023, has ordered enlargement of petitioner therein, who was behind bars for one and half years, on the ground of delay in trial and conduct of the petitioner. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to judgment of a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court, passed on 19.7.2022 in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail, especially in the cases where rigors of Section 37 are attracted. 15. In the instant case, bail petitioner is behind bars since 14.6.2024 and till date, trial has not been completed and there are very bleak chances of conclusion of the same in near future, as such, there 9 appears to be no justification to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. 16. 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. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 10 secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be 11 enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist 12 for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. June 4, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ), (manjit) Judge