2026:HHC:22565 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 770 of 2026 Decided on: 17.06.2026. Nakul Mittal …. Petitioner Versus State of HP ….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with M/s Varun Chauhan and Swati Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent/State: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 204 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25, and 29 read with Section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:22565 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a Naka at Pungh Four lane on Sundernagar Bilaspur road on 22.09.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. UP-16AX-2143. Five people were occupying the car who got frightened after seeing the police. The police associated Kuldeep Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Constable Satish Kumar as witnesses and enquired about the names of the occupants of the vehicle. The driver revealed his name as Diwansh Patel, the person sitting beside the driver disclosed his name as Nakul Mittal (the present petitioner), and the persons sitting on the rear seat identified themselves as Arnav Chauhan, Saksham Bharti and Rohit Kumar. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a carry bag containing 1 kg 174 grams of charas. The petitioner has nothing to do with the bag, and it was kept in the vehicle by Kashin Kashyap. The police also arrested other co-accused based on the disclosure statements and financial transactions. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3 2026:HHC:22565 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a nakka at Pungh four- lane and were checking the vehicles on 22.09.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. UP-16AX-2143. The driver and occupants of the vehicle got frightened after seeing the police. The police associated Kuldeep Kumar and Mukesh Kumar as independent witnesses. The police inquired about the names of the occupants of the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Divyansh Patel, the person beside him identified himself as Nakul Mittal (the present petitioner), and the persons sitting on the rear seat identified themselves as Arnav Chauhan, Saksham Bharti and Rohit Kumar. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a carry bag containing 1 kg 174 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The charas was sent to SFSL, Junga, and it was confirmed to be a sample of charas after the analysis. The occupants revealed during interrogation that they had handed over ₹5000/- each to Kashin Kashyap to purchase charas. They identified the room where they had stayed in Kullu. The investigation is complete. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 17.01.2026, and the matter is pending before the 4 2026:HHC:22565 learned Special Judge, Court No.1, Mandi. The petitioner Nakul Mittal had accompanied the co-accused from Shoolini on 21.09.2025 on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR- 26CA-6605 but had stayed with Arnav, Saviraj Chauhan, Rohit Kumar and Aditya Kumar at 9 miles. The petitioner and the co- accused disclosed in their interrogation that they had paid ₹5000/- to Kashin Kashyap for purchasing the charas. The petitioner boarded the vehicle bearing registration No. UP- 16AX-2143 and handed over his motorcycle to Kashin Kashyap for driving. The quantity of charas recovered from the petitioner’s possession is huge, and no leniency should be shown in the present case. The charas was meant for the sale to students. The consumption of charas is adversely affecting society. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by M/s Varun Chauhan and Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5 2026:HHC:22565 5. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The status report shows that the petitioner had stayed at Pandoh in the BBD Hotel and had not gone to Kullu. The co-accused Kashin Kahsyap had played an active role in the purchase of the charas. He put his backpack containing charas in the vehicle and borrowed the petitioner’s motorcycle. The petitioner would have been riding the motorcycle but for the fortuitous circumstance of the motorcycle being borrowed by the co-accused. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the charas recovered by the police. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of Madan Lal versus State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1664: 2003 SCC OnLineSC 874 11 in support of his submissions. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle from which the commercial quantity of charas was recovered. Prima facie, the petitioner is to be treated as in possession, and the burden is upon the 6 2026:HHC:22565 petitioner to rebut the presumption. He has not placed any material to rebut the presumption. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” 7 2026:HHC:22565 (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant 8 2026:HHC:22565 of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the 9 2026:HHC:22565 said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering a bail application are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 10 2026:HHC:22565 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of 11 2026:HHC:22565 fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The police checked the record and the CCTV footage. The police found that Nakul Mittal (petitioner), Arnav, Saviraj Chauhan, Rohit Kumar and Aditya Kumar had stayed in the hotel during the night. The police also checked the CCTV footage and the Register of Sharma Guest House, Bajora. They found that Divyansh Patel, Saksham Bharti, Kashin Kashyap and Ayansh Shrivastava had stayed in the Guest House. They were also found in the CCTV footage of the ATM owned by Punjab National Bank. Thus, the petitioner had not visited Kullu, from where the charas is stated to have been purchased. The police asserted that the petitioner had contributed ₹5000/- in cash and he had consumed charas with the co-accused, but there is no proof of this fact. No person deposed about the payment of ₹ 12 2026:HHC:22565 5000/- to Kashin Kashyap. The medical examination of the petitioner was not conducted to determine whether he had consumed charas. Thus, the submission that the petitioner had contributed money for the purchase of charas or had consumed charas cannot be accepted. 12. It is an admitted version that the petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26CA- 6605, and he had handed over its custody to Kashin Kashyap and boarded the vehicle from which the recovery was effected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Madan Lal (supra) that conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. It was observed: “19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, and as noted by the trial court, they were known to each other, and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.” 13. In the present case, the status report itself mentions that the petitioner had not gone to Kullu. He never intended to travel in the car, but on the motorcycle. He had handed over the motorcycle to Kashin Kashyap at his request and boarded the 13 2026:HHC:22565 car. There is a force in the submission of Mr Ajay Kochchar, learned Senior Advocate, that but for the fortuitous circumstance of the petitioner’s motorcycle being borrowed by the co-accused Kashin, the petitioner would not have been connected to the present case. Therefore, prima facie, the material on record is insufficient to infer the petitioner’s conscious possession. 14. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the allegations in the status report show the abetment of possession of charas by the petitioner. It is a matter of trial whether there was abetment or not. However, prima facie, it is difficult to conclude from the petitioner’s mere presence in the vehicle that he was in conscious possession of the charas lying in it. 15. The status report mentions that the petitioner is the first offender and no other case has been registered against him. Thus, there is insufficient material on record to conclude that the petitioner would commit the offence if released on bail. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety 14 2026:HHC:22565 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioner shall not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court, and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 15 2026:HHC:22565 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mandi, HP and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th June, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.06.17 14:41:43 +0000