2026:HHC:22502 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM Nos. 947 and 949 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 947 of 2026 Shivam Rawat ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 949 of 2026 Suraj Rawat ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Topender Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioners namely Shivam Rawat and Suraj Rawat, who are behind bars since 10.3.2026, 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. 8 of 2026 dated 10.3.2026, registered at Police Station Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal 2026:HHC:22502 2 Pradesh, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Pursuant to orders dated 27.5.2026 passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report and SI Sharifu Deen, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 9.3.2026, police party present near Feduj Bridge signaled one scooty bearing registration No. UK14H8376 to stop for checking, but rider of the afore scooty attempted to run away from the place. While breaking the Naka laid on the spot, pillion rider namely Shivam Rawat allegedly threw one bag on the side of the road. At some distance, police was able to stop the aforesaid scooty and thereafter, allegedly, after having associated the independent witnesses, recovered 268 grams of charas from the bag allegedly thrown by pillion rider Shivam Rawat. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities lodged FIR detailed herein above and since then, bail petitioners are behind bars. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent 2026:HHC:22502 3 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 indulge in illegal trade of narcotics and as such, in the event of being enlarged on bail, they may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 5. 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 petitioners that bail petitioners have been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the bag allegedly thrown by one of the bail petitioner namely Shivam Rawat in the presence of the independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioners are behind bars for more than three months coupled with the fact that they are first offenders, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of bail. Averments contained in the petition as well as material available on record reveal that both the petitioners are students and at present, they are pursuing Radiography course and on account of their being lodged in jail, they have not been able to attend the classes, as a result of which, there is every likelihood of their being deprived from 2026:HHC:22502 4 participating in the examination scheduled to be held in the month of July 2026. 6. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that bail petitioners are drug peddlers, but there is no material to substantiate aforesaid plea of him, rather this Court is persuaded to infer that bail petitioners are drug addicts and as such, they are required to be provided immediate medical assistance. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind bars during trial, rather they need to be taken to some rehabilitation centre for treatment so that they are brought back to mainstream. Rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. 7. 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 petitioners’ 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. 8. 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, 2026:HHC:22502 5 this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioners incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when their guilt is yet to be established. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 2026:HHC:22502 6 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 2026:HHC:22502 7 in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each, with two local sureties in the like 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. June 16, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge