[ 2026:HHC:24831 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 797 of 2026 Reserved on.: 24.06.2026 Announced on: 25.06.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional -State Advocate General for Respondents. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Raj Kumar], being in custody since 05.02.2025 has come up before this Court, seeking bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS) originating from FIR No. 33 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025, registered at Police Station Nurpur, Police District Nurpur, Kangra [H.P.], under Section 21, 25 and 29 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 2 - the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act). FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the bail petitioner [Raj Kumar] was detained by the police and was subsequently arrested on 05.02.2025 and has been falsely implicated. It is averred that there is no corroborative evidence directly or indirectly to reveal the conscious and direct involvement either in procurement, possession or trafficking of the alleged narcotic substances. It is averred that bail petitioner has been implicated on absurd, baseless and imaginary story and the police has carved out a concocted story against him. 2(i). It is averred that the grounds of detention were not communicated to him. It is averred that the bail petitioner has no role in the commission of the offence and bail petitioner was not at all instrumental either in arrangement and transportation of the alleged contraband in question. It is averred that the bail petitioner has no concerned relating to the accusation of sale and purchase of contraband. It is further averred [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 3 - that the bail petitioner has not committed any offence and the mere recovery of alleged contraband from the vehicle owned [on affidavit] by the co-accused, namely, Roop Lal, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is averred that nothing has come in the investigation against the bail petitioner and the trial is likely to take considerable time and delay in trial cannot form basis prolonging the incarceration of the bail petitioner, in the instant case. 2(ii). It is further averred that the bail petitioner was ready and willing to furnish the personal bond with surety bonds and shall comply with such other conditions as may be imposed by this Court. It has been undertaken that the bail petitioner will neither influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. It is averred that the bail petitioner has no past criminal antecedents either in relation to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances or any other criminal case. In this backdrop, the instant application has been filed, through his brother with the prayer [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 4 - for releasing the petitioner on bail. STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court, on 08.05.2026, the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 21.05.2026 of SHO Police Station Nurpur, Police District Nurpur in Kangra [HP] and during the course of hearing on 22.05.2026, a copy of the Status Report was furnished to Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who prayed for time to go through the Status Report and make submissions. 4. Heard, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent-State. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL IN GENERAL: 5. In general, the broad parameters regulating the claim for bail have been spelt out in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 5 - reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail is to be granted where the allegations are frivolous or groundless and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point towards the accusation. However, depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment, including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial; and the character; past antecedents; behavior; means; position and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 6 - bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in light of broad-parameters referred to above. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL INVOLVING COMMERCIAL QUANTITY OF CONTRABAND UNDER NDPS : 6. In NDPS matters, while dealing with the claim for bail involving commercial quantity, the Court has to bear in mind that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature and the sine qua non for granting bail to an accused involved in such offences is to grant an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release and a Court has to record its satisfaction on twin conditions, firstly, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an accused is not guilty [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 7 - of the alleged offence and secondly, the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as per the mandate of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673; and by Three Judge Bench in NCB vs Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374; Union of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346; Narcotics Control Bureau vs Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372; and in State of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo and another (2024) 15 SCC 36; State of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 and recording of such satisfaction, on twin aspects, by a Court, is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre-condition and without recording its satisfaction the claim for bail cannot sustain and though the right to speedy trial rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right; and even under special enactment such as the NDPS Act, particularly where the recovery is of commercial [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 8 - quantity, the said right under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it. The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special provision of law under Section 37 NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other; and the aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgement in the case of State of Punjab vs Balraj Singh alias Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE: 7. Based on the principles outlined by law, on bail in general and even for bail in offences involving commercial quantity of contraband under NDPS Act, and after taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record as is borne out from Status Report(s), this Court proceeds to analyse the claim of the petitioner for bail, in instant case entitling the petitioner [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 9 - [Raj Kumar] to be enlarged on bail for following reasons:- SATISFACTION OF COURT ON TWIN CONDITIONS OF SECTION 37(1)(b) OF NDPS ACT : 8. For appreciating the claim with reference to the twin conditions in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the material aspects, read as under: [A] REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST THAT PETITIONER NOT GUILTY : Based on the mandate of Section 37 (1)(b) of NDPS Act, this Court deals with the first condition that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence for the following reasons: PROSECUTION STORY AS IN STATUS REPORT: 8(i). Status Report dated 21.05.2026 indicates that prosecution story is that police party head by ASI Satender Singh received a secret information at about 10.25 A.M that two persons, namely, Raj Kumar and Roop Lal were sitting in White Hyundai Xcent bearing registration No. HP-01K-5700, parked [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 10 - near Government Hospital Nurpur on Defence Road behind Ekant Hotel near Shiv temple who were alleged to be involved in business of Narcotic substance/ Charas in the area. On receipt of information, the Investigating Officer after associating independent witnesses Khushal Singh and Ajay Kumar reached the spot and found that co-accused Roop Lal was found sitting on the seat next to the driver whereas Raj Kumar [bail petitioner] was sitting on drivers seat. Status Report indicate that upon search of vehicle, six packets wrapped with Khaki coloured tape were found containing sticks and round shaped solid substance i.e. Charas-Cannabis and on weighing, the contraband came out to be 2 Kgs. 950 grams and after completing codal formalities both the accused were detained and thereafter arrested by the police as per procedure. NO RECOVERY OF CONTRABAND FROM PETITIONER : 8(ii). Material on record and the Status Report [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 11 - goes on to establish that the alleged contraband was found from the Vehicle No. HP-01K-5700, which was owned by one Shri Rakesh Kumar but the same was sold on affidavit to Roop Lal, co-accused. Status Report further indicates that co-accused Roop Lal, being the owner of the vehicle, was sitting on the left side in the said vehicle [next to driver seat] and the alleged contraband was recovered from the plastic cover of left door of the said vehicle. Nothing has been spelt out nor suggested in the Status Report that the contraband in question was recovered from the bail petitioner. Nothing has transpired during investigation [as per Status Report] that any recovery of contraband was affected from the petitioner [Raj Kumar] herein. In absence of any recovery from the petitioner [Raj Kumar] there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO PETITIONER ABOUT CONTRABAND IN VEHICLE OWNED BY ROOP LAL: 8(iii). Perusal of the Status Report indicates [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 12 - that during the course of investigation, it has come on record, that co-accused Roop Lal, being the owner of the vehicle had informed the petitioner [Raj Kumar] that he should reach Padhar and both shall go for an outing to Pathankot and it was on this assertion that the petitioner reached Padhar, from where, both started for Pathankot but were intercepted by the police. It has come in Status Report that the petitioner [Raj Kumar] had no knowledge that the co-accused [Roop Lal] had planted-kept or was carrying the alleged contraband in the said vehicle. No nexus between the petitioner and alleged contraband has been pointed out. In absence of any evidence to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the contraband having been planted-kept in the vehicle by Roop Lal, then this Court, is satisfied at this stage that the bail petitioner [Raj Kumar] is not guilty of the offence in question, in the instant case. [B]. PETITIONER NOT LIKELY TO COMMIT ANY [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 13 - OFFENCE WHILE ON BAIL: 8(iv). Perusal of the Status Report indicates that the State Authorities have not pointed out any material to infer that the bail petitioner is likely to commit any offence after his release on bail, in instant case. Even, the averments made in the bail petition that the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents have not been disputed by the State Authorities in the Status Report. Based on the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the bail petitioner is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied in instant case, when neither any recovery was affected from the petitioner nor the petitioner had any knowledge that the co-accused Roop Lal had planted-kept or was carrying contraband in his vehicle, leads to the reasonable belief that the [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 14 - petitioner is not guilty of the offence coupled with the fact that no adversial circumstances has been placed on record to establish that the bail petitioner shall commit any offence after release on bail and once the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents, therefore, the prolongation of incarceration would curtail the personal liberty and shall defeat the ends of justice; entitling the petitioner [Raj Kumar] to bail. Accordingly, the claim for bail is accepted. PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SECTION 20, 25 AND 29 IMPERMISSIBLE AT THIS STAGE : 8(v). The accusation under Section 20 of the NDPS Act appears to be untenable at this stage. Status Report indicates that the alleged vehicle being registration No. HP-01K-5700 was owned by Roop Lal, in which the alleged contraband was recovered from cover of the left door and the Status Report nowhere points out that any recovery of contraband was affected from the bail petitioner and even the Status Report indicates that the bail petitioner had no [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 15 - knowledge that the co-accused Roop Lal had planted or kept the alleged contraband in his car whereas it is the prosecution story that the petitioner was called for an outing by co-accused [Roop Lal] to accompany him from Padhar to Pathankot. Status Report does not point out any violation of Section 20 of the NDPS Act by the petitioner at this stage. Moreover, the accusation under Section 20 of the NDPS Act that the petitioner had violated the condition of any licence granted to him or had cultivated the cannabis plant or he possessed or resorts to sale, purchase and transportation of alleged cannabis-Charas is a matter to be examined, tested and proved during the trial. So far accusation under Section 25 of the NDPS Act is concerned, once the vehicle in question was owned by co-accused Roop Lal and the Status Report corroborates that the bail petitioner had merely accompanied the co-accused for an outing on his asking from Padhar to Pathankot and the [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 16 - fact that the bail petitioner had no knowledge that the alleged contraband was planted or kept by the said co-accused in his vehicle, then in these circumstances the accusation against the bail petitioner appears to be incredible, which is a matter to be examined, tested and proved during the trial. So far as the accusation under Section 29 of NDPS Act is concerned, the factum of abetment and criminal conspiracy cannot be prejudged at this stage. Mere suspicion or preponderance of portability, cannot lead to the inference of abetment or criminal conspiracy against the bail petitioner, which is a matter to be examined, tested and proved during the trial. CLAIM FOR BAIL INVOLVING COMMERCIAL QUANTITY UNDER SECTION 37 HAS TO BE HARMONIOUSLY CONSTRUED IN LIGHT OF ARTICLE 21 : 9. Though in facts of instant case, the accusation under Section 37(1)(b) is not made out yet while dealing with the claim for bail under [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 17 - Special Enactments and rigors of Section 45 (1) (ii) of MPLA and proviso to Section 43-D (5) of Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 and Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024, in V. Senthil Balaji versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, has mandated that rigors in Special Enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS Act, will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and prolonged incarceration so as to prevent the deprivation of curtailment of personal liberty and right to speedy trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, in the following terms:- “24. There are a few penal statutes that make a departure from the provisions of Sections 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A higher threshold is provided in these statutes for the grant of bail. By way of illustration, we may refer to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 37 of [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 18 - the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’). The provisions regarding bail in some of such statutes start with a non obstante clause for overriding the provisions of Sections 437 to 439 of the CrPC. The legislature has done so to secure the object of making the penal provisions in such enactments. For example, the PMLA provides for Section 45(1)(ii) as money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the country's financial system but also to its integrity and sovereignty. 25. Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 19 - incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time. 26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. We have already referred to paragraph 17 of the said decision, which lays down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is that if, because of such provisions, incarceration of an under-trial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, the provisions may be exposed to the vice of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven years. The minimum sentence is higher when the scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 20 - grant bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors. One of the most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for the offence. Another important consideration is the higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered. The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, as the case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear in mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except in a few [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 21 - exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45 (1) (ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be substantially attributed to the accused, the Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary. 29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant's [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 22 - detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial. 31. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, and the appellant shall be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of CC No. 9 of 2023 pending before the Principal Session Judge, Chennai, on the following conditions ………”. 9(i). The Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, has enlarged the accused on bail, who was facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms charas from a vehicle alongwith four other persons for having been in detention for more than 2 years and there is no further progress in the trial. 9(ii). While dealing the claim for bail by a person involved in commercial quantity of contraband, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of bail in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 23 - (Crl.) No(s).1904/2023, titled as Sunil Kumar Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29.03.2023, in the following terms:- “It is noted that the petitioner has been in custody for more that one and a half years and the trial is yet to conclude. Earlier, the petitioner had been granted interim bail on two occasions and has not misused the liberty of interim bail or violated any of the bail conditions imposed upon him but has thereafter, surrendered back. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the Trial Court including the condition that the petitioner shall diligently participate in the trial. Ordered accordingly.” 9(iii). Accepting the prayer for bail by accused of commercial quantity in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4648/2024, titled as Ankur Chaudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 28.05.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of bail, in a case, where the trial was not concluded and [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 24 - by invoking Article 21 of Constitution of India which mandates that the prolonged incarceration defeats fundamental rights and the fundamental rights override the statutory embargo in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act in the following terms:- “Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court.” 9(iv). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the concession of bail to an accused allegedly [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 25 - involved in commercial quantity, who was facing incarceration of one year and four months and in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7115/2024, titled as Sohrab Khan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13.08.2024, in the following terms:- “The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about one year and four months in jail. The petitioner and com accused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50 grams. Considering the fact that the petitioner criminal antecedents and the entire facts and circumstances has no of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court.” 9(v). The claim for bail in case involving [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 26 - commercial quantity of an accused who was facing incarceration for 1 year and 6 months was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9510/ 2024, titled as Ram Lal Versus The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17.09.2024, as in this case, in the following terms:- “The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 450 gm of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report Rated 13.09.2924, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent- State but no one has appeared for the state. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 27 - Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court.” 9(vi). While dealing with the claim for bail involving commercial quantity of Ganza under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the prayer for bail, in SLP (Criminal) No. 2401 of 2026, Satyajeet Bhoi versus State of Chhattisgarh and another, decided on 16.03.2026 when nothing was brought on record to establish any nexus between the bail petitioner and the alleged contraband coupled with the factum of prolonged incarceration and the fact that the trial was likely to be delayed. 9(vii). While dealing with claim for bail of an accused, who was in custody for about 2 years being involved in commercial quantity of contraband, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 has outlined that the claim under Section [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 28 - 37 and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 have to be read harmoniously and the right under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Article 21 cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the following terms: 10. The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record the satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Far from recording such satisfaction, the High Court has gone on to observe that 'the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.' Such an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The right to speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That said, in matters governed by a special enactment such as the NDPS Act, particularly where the recovery is of commercial quantity, [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 29 - the said right under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it. The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special provision of law under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37, has in this Court’s view, committed an error. 9(viii). While dealing with the claim for bail involving commercial quantity of contraband, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tasleem Ahmed versus State Government of NCT of Delhi Crl. Appeal 2795 of 2026 [@ SLP (Crl.) No.2867 of 2026] has held that the issue as to what would be the correct approach to bail under special statutes, where Article 21 and prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect [under Section 37(1)(b) in the instant case], the matter was referred to a larger bench, yet the bail [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 30 - was granted with the observation that an accused cannot be made to suffer merely because the question has arisen which stands referred to Larger Bench for authoritative settlement, in the following terms: 21. The question, therefore, is not whether Article 21 survives Section 43D(5). It undoubtedly does. The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory field where Parliament has consciously imposed restrictions on bail in respect of offences alleged to affect the security of the State and the stability of civic life. 23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the issue requires consideration by Bench to be constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. This is necessary not merely for the present batch of matters, but to settle the correct approach to bail under special statutes where Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect. 24. Having regard to the importance of the issue, we are of the view that the questions requiring consideration need not [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 31 - be confined to the correctness of any one decision. The controversy raises a broader question concerning the manner in which constitutional courts are to approach bail where prolonged incarceration is asserted in prosecutions governed by special statutes imposing restrictive bail conditions. In this background it would be imperative or in other words necessary for the appropriate bench that may be constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, to clarify or expound the position of law laid down in K.A. Najeeb’s case, particularly in the backdrop of the rigour of 43D (5) which imposes restriction consciously and has received the assent of the Parliament, which obviously was brought in keeping in mind the valuable right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 27. Having said so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the present appellants have undergone substantial incarceration; that the trial is not likely to conclude immediately; that the appellants themselves have invoked the principle of calibrated constitutional discretion recognised in Gulfisha Fatima; and that [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 32 - the determination of the issues may consume further time. The appellants cannot be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and subject to stringent safeguards, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the appellants pending further orders. 9(ix). Further, in the case of State of Punjab vs Balraj Singh alias Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not fulfilled, which are mandatory and in such circumstances, mere prolongation of incarceration will not warrant interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of Inda, is in the following terms: 17. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now proceed to examine the impugned order. The abovementioned decisions of this Court display the consistent view that when it comes to cases involving commercial quantity of [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 33 - narcotics, the mandatory requirements of Section 37 ought to be considered. It is not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity. In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 19. Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty years may be imposed upon him. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution. By taking into account the principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgements and in facts of instant case, this Court having already recorded satisfaction that by applying the twin conditions of Section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act, once reasonable grounds exists [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 34 - to believe that the petitioner [Raj Kumar] is not guilty of the offences in question, as no recovery was made from the bail petitioner and the Status Report itself establishes that bail petitioner had no knowledge that co-accused [Roop Lal] had planted or kept or was carrying the alleged contraband in vehicle owned by him, in which they had travelled from Padhar to Pathankot for an outing then in these circumstances the personal liberty and the fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed or negated, when the trial is at nascent stage and its conclusion is likely to take considerable time therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail in instant case. INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 10. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 35 - eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined the object of bail, in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:- “11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 36 - accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 25. The provisions of Cr PC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 37 - grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under: "We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge- sheeted by the police." [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 38 - REFORMATIVE INTENT AND CLAIM FOR BAIL: 11. While dealing with the concept of bail which has humanist and reformative intent coupled with the fact that the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another. NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 12. Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner asserts that the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents. The status report does not indicate any past criminal antecedents and, therefore, in view of these facts, the present accusation which is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial, cannot be made the basis for prolonging the incarceration of the bail petitioner in facts of in the instant case. [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 39 - NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 13. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out cogent and convincing material revealing adversarial circumstances that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded, by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT: 14. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail orders, in later part of this order. CONCLUSION: [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 40 - 15. In facts of instant case, as discussed above, the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that firstly, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the bail petitioner is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and the accusation under Section 37(1)(b) is not made out, at this stage, as discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since 5.02.2025 and is undergoing incarceration for about one year and four months; and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, when, out of 24 witnesses only 2 PWs have been examined as yet and the trial is likely to take considerable time; and fourthly, the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner ; and fifthly, reasonable grounds exist to believe that bail petitioner is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 41 - continued detention of the petitioner in guise of penalizing him by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, nothing cogent and convincing has been placed on record that there is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, once neither any recovery of contraband has been effected by the police from the petitioner nor the petitioner [Raj Kumar] had any knowledge that the co-accused [Roop Lal], who was the owner of vehicle had planted-kept or was carrying contraband in said vehicle, who told the petitioner to accompany him from Padhar to Pathankot for an outing; and otherwise the accusation against the petitioner is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial; and lastly, in order to safeguard the interest of State vis-à-vis the right of petitioner, this Court imposes stringent condition in this order and in case of any violation or misuse of the concession-liberty, the State Authority can [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 42 - seek cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law as referred to above, the claim of the petitioner [Raj Kumar], for enlargement on bail, carries weight, in peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed above. DIRECTIONS: 16. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law and the reasons recorded hereinabove and in the peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Raj Kumar] on bail, subject to the observance of following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Raj Kumar] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.75,000/- {Rs Seventy [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 43 - Five Thousand} with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court concerned, if not required in any other case; (ii) Petitioner shall undertake and shall also appear on every date of trial hereinafter; (iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order; (iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ; (v) Petitioner shall disclose her functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court; (vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11.00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour; (vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court; (viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner; (ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case; [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 44 - (x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises; (xi) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after; (xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order; and (xiii) The concession granted to petitioner in terms of this order shall abide by the outcome of orders to be passed in the reference made to Larger Bench in Tasleem Ahmed versus State Government of NCT of Delhi Crl. Appeal 2795 of 2026 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867 of 2026] dated 22.05.2026. 17. Observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove. [ 2026:HHC:24831 ] - 45 - 18. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court. 19. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Police District Nurpur for information and with the further direction to intimate the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur to keep an update on good conduct and behavior of the bail petitioner [Raj Kumar] in terms of this order. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 25th June, 2026 ( tm)