IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM Nos. 1049, 1050 and 1051 of 2026 Date of Decision: 29.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No.1049 of 2026 Kushal Awasthi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1050 of 2026 Ritik Gangid ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 1051 of 2026 Udit Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) 2 Bail petitioners namely Kushal Awasthi, Ritik Gangid and Udit Sharma, who are behind the bars since 17.3.2026, 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. 24/26 dated 17.3.2026, registered at Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Pursuant to order dated 17.6.2026, passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Vinay Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 17.3.2026, police party, which had laid Naka near Dunkhra Chawk at 3:30pm, after having received secrete information that persons travelling in car bearing registration No. RJ60CH2951 may be transporting charas, intercepted the afore vehicle for checking. Since occupants of the car got perplexed and started making excuses, police deemed it necessary to cause their personal search including the vehicle and allegedly in the presence of independent witnesses, recovered 962 grams of charas. 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 3 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. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law states 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. Chauhan, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioners were in constant touch of the suppliers in District Kullu. He contends that since bail petitioners are accused of heinous crime having adverse impact on the society, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail because in that event, they may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing 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 conscious possession of the bail petitioners in the presence of the independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail 4 petitioners are behind bars for more than three months and rigors of Section 37 are not attracted in the cases at hand, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of bail. Though learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that petitioners are drug peddlers, however there is nothing on record to suggest that in past, they have been indulging in these activities, rather this Court finds that petitioners herein are first offenders. True it is that all the bail petitioners hail from State of Rajasthan, but that cannot be a ground to deny the bail, rather to secure presence of the bail petitioner in trial, they can be put to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the present cases on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. 5. 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. Since guilt, if any, of the petitioners is yet to be established, this Court sees no reason to let them incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. 6. 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 5 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. 7. 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. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 9. 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 6 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- 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; 7 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge