2026:HHC:25402 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.707 of 2026 Date of Decision: 29.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Sunny Kumar @ Viju ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Mr. Vipin Bhatia and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. SI Lal Chand, Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., present in person along with record. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Sunny Kumar @ Viju, who is behind bars for last two years and nine months, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.159 dated 09.10.2023, under Sections 302, 376-D, 201 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Respondent/State has filed status-report and SI Lal Chand, Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 2026:HHC:25402 2 3. Perusal of the status report as well as record reveals that on 09.10.2023, Police, upon receiving telephonic information from one Sanjay Kumar, son of Sh. Raju Ram, resident of Upper Aarthi, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, to the effect that a woman was lying dead in the rain shelter near the approach road, immediately reached the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant, as named hereinabove, wherein he stated that on 09.10.2023, while he was proceeding on foot to his shop at around 6:35/6:40 AM, he noticed a woman lying on the floor of the rain shelter in naked condition. He further alleged that one scarf (dupatta) was found tied around the neck of the woman and she was dead. He also alleged that subsequently he came to know that the name of deceased woman was Satya Devi, wife of Khem Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, police checked CCTV footage from a camera installed outside a departmental/vegetable store owned by one Sh. Karan Singh and found that on 08.10.2023 at 11:34 PM, a pickup vehicle coming from Jogindernagar side had halted/stopped near the rain shelter at the approach road. CCTV footage also revealed that four individuals alighted from the pickup and laid their bedding on the floor of the rain shelter. 2026:HHC:25402 3 While the four persons were laying down their bedding on the floor of rain shelter, one lady i.e. deceased woman could also be seen standing nearby. 4. Deceased lady, after having crossed the road went inside the rain shelter. At around 11:53 PM, one SUV, came from Jogindernagar side, which after having crossed the rain shelter, turned back and asked the peoples sitting in the rain shelter that everything was fine or not. One person sitting in the rain shelter confirmed that there is nothing wrong, the SUV left the spot. Police contacted owner of the SUV, whose name came to be revealed as Parveen Kumar. Aforesaid Parveen Kumar in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., disclosed that on 08.10.2023, while he was going from Palampur to Harabag at around 11:50 PM, he noticed 2-3 persons sitting on the floor of rain shelter near the approach road. He alleged that three boys were lying on bedding, whereas one person was talking to deceased, while sitting. He also disclosed that when he had come back to rain shelter, he saw one pickup vehicle bearing the words “MAA BHADRAKALI” prominently written on its body. During the investigation, on 10.10.2023, police found pickup vehicle bearing registration No. HP-29- B-8911 at a place called Jimjima. The police summoned/called the owner of the vehicle along with his son for investigation. During the course of investigation, it transpired that said vehicle was being driven by Rakesh 2026:HHC:25402 4 Kumar, present bail petitioner, who, on the previous night, had gone to Sarkaghat for collecting wood along with his friends, namely Shivam Kumar alias Sunny, Raj alias Gandu, Akashay alias Ishu, and Praveen Kumar. Though all the aforesaid persons had to go to Sarkaghat on 06.10.2023, but on that day, they did not go. On 07.10.2023 at around 5:00 PM, all the persons, as named hereinabove, along with the present bail petitioner, went towards Sarkaghat in pickup bearing registration No. HP-29-B-8911, which was being driven by present bail petitioner Rakesh Kumar. On 07.10.2023 and 08.10.2023, during the day time, persons sitting in the vehicle did the work of cutting and loading of wood. While they were going back to Jogindernagar on 08.10.2023 at around 7:00 PM, they purchased liquor from Jogindernagar, and when they reached near Bashidhar, Rakesh Kumar stopped his vehicle near the rain shelter, and they all consumed liquor there. At around 11:15 PM, the vehicle reached near the approach road, where co-accused Parveen Kumar alighted from the vehicle and went towards his house. Parveen Kumar told Rakesh Kumar that liquor had finished, whereafter Rakesh Kumar turned his vehicle towards Jogindernagar and purchased liquor. When vehicle being driven by Rakesh Kumar reached near the hospital, he made one girl sit in his car, and thereafter, they all reached near the approach road at around 11:35 PM. 2026:HHC:25402 5 The persons sitting in the vehicle carried one mat and 3–4 blankets and proceeded towards the rain shelter, where they made their bedding. However, Rakesh Kumar, along with the girl, who had boarded the vehicle near Jogindernagar went about 50 meters ahead towards some nalla. The deceased, who was already present near the rain shelter, also came into the rain shelter and started talking to present bail petitioner, namely Sunny Kumar alias Biju. The deceased, who had already consumed liquor, informed that she was a resident of Neri Langana and would board some truck. Bail petitioner gave her one peg of liquor, and after consuming the same, she started crying. After a few minutes, Rakesh Kumar came to the spot and told his friends that he had seen this lady before and she was an alcoholic. He further advised them to not stop her for long and after finishing the work send her. After the departure of the present bail petitioner from the spot, bail petitioner pulled the said lady on the bedding made by him for himself and attempted to sexually assault her. The other persons also got excited, but when deceased raised an alarm, co-accused Shivam gagged her mouth with her dupatta. Another co-accused, Gandu, caught hold of the deceased, and when she resisted, co-accused gave one blow with his fist on her face. Thereafter, bail petitioner forcibly attempted to sexually assault the deceased lady, but while doing the unlawful act, the 2026:HHC:25402 6 head of the deceased struck against the floor, as a result of which blood started oozing out of the same. Bail petitioner and other co-accused, realizing that they may be in difficulty, wrapped a duptta around the neck of the deceased. Though accused present in the rain shelter firstly planned to throw the body of the deceased in nearby jungle, but since they were under the influence of liquor, could not lift the body of the lady and, as such, left the same in the rain shelter and fled away from the spot. After some time, Rakesh Kumar, who had gone approximately 50 meters ahead, came back and saw that one lady was lying on the floor of the rain shelter in a naked condition, but yet failed to inform the Police. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner as well as the other co-accused named above under Sections 201, 302, 376-D, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by 2026:HHC:25402 7 him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, further states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner firstly sexually assaulted the deceased and thereafter murdered her brutally. He states that since petitioner has committed heinous crime having adverse impact on the society, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds it difficult to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather there appears to be ample evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner along with other co-accused, named in the FIR, firstly made the deceased consume alcohol and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Since some resistance came to be shown by the deceased, present bail petitioner with the assistance of co-accused namely Akshay, who is juvenile, strangulated the deceased. However, having taken note of the fact that the bail petitioner is behind bars for last three years and till date, prosecution has been not able to examine all the prosecution witnesses, 2026:HHC:25402 8 this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer of the petitioner for bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 7. At this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial cannot be accepted, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that Hon’ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, has held that however serious a crime may be, an accused has right to speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case at hand, this Court finds that FIR was registered on 09.12.2023 and since then, bail petitioner is behind bars, whereas juvenile namely Raj and Akshay along with other co-accused Rakesh Kumar stand enlarged on bail. Since it took more than two years and nine months for prosecution to examine three witnesses out of 55, this Court has reason to presume and believe that considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial. 2026:HHC:25402 9 8. Though prima facie evidence adduced on record suggests clear cut involvement of the petitioner in the case at hand, but since the case at hand is to be decided by the Court below in the totality of evidence collected by the prosecution, it may not be proper for this Court to comment upon the merits of the case, however, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than two years and nine months and as of today, only three prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 55, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial deserves to be considered. 9. Needless to say that speedy trial has been held to be a right of the accused and violation thereof has been further held to be infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, in the case at hand, petitioner is accused of heinous crime, punishable under Section 302 IPC, but such fact may not be a ground to deny the bail, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that delay, if any, in the trial is on account of adjournments, if any, taken on behalf of the petitioner. FIR in the case at hand was lodged in the year 2023 and prosecution with a view to prove its case proposes to examine 55 witnesses, however, till date, only 3 witnesses have been examined. If it took almost three years for prosecution to examine only three witnesses, this Court can well presume that 2026:HHC:25402 10 considerable time is likely to be consumed in recording the statement of remaining witnesses. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (surpa) adversely commented upon the approach of trial Court as well as High Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court having taken note of the fact that appellant in that case was in jail for last four years and Court till that date was not able to frame charges, proceeded to enlarge accused on bail in a case registered under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In no uncertain terms, Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment held that, however serious a crime may be, an accused has right to speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant Paras of aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow, which reads as under: “7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an 2026:HHC:25402 11 accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: “What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox] : "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial." 11. The same principle has been reiterated by this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that 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 and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 12. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, this court had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is “implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court”. Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a procedure that is “reasonable, fair and just” it was held that: “Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be “reasonable, fair or just”unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of 2026:HHC:25402 12 such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as “reasonable, fair or just” and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of along delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21.” 13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re-emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: “The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case maybe, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one,may be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.” 14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023INSC 311, this Court observed as under: “21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail,may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice 2026:HHC:25402 13 wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31stDecember 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials. 22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the KeralaHigh Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State reported in 1993Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner: “loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom,status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes.” 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”(also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore,have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.” 15. The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and 2026:HHC:25402 14 have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008. 16. 16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713] had an occasion to consider the long incarceration and at the same time the effect of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as under : (SCC p. 722, para 17) “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings,the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safe-guard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.” 17. In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973would apply: “We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. 2026:HHC:25402 15 The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code.” 18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents,juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, maybe, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.” 2026:HHC:25402 16 11. 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. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record and as such, his incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of Fundamental Right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure 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. Moreover, 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. 2026:HHC:25402 17 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 2026:HHC:25402 18 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. 16. 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. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- 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; 2026:HHC:25402 19 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the 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. 21. Before parting, this Court wishes to point out that though petitioner herein and other co-accused have been charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2026:HHC:25402 20 Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., Camp at Joginder Nagar, but order dated 13.08.2025, thereby framing charge reveals that petitioner as well as other co-accused have been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Vide order dated 13.08.2025, learned Court below while proceeding to record that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge against the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, has further observed that charges are framed accordingly and put to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the afore background, Court fixed the matter for recording the statement of witnesses. If the aforesaid order is taken into consideration, Court below has virtually left the parties to lead evidence qua the charge framed under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Besides above, this Court also finds that while framing charge, Court has mentioned date as ‘13.08.2021’ by which date, not even the offence was committed. Though aforesaid mistakes, as pointed out, may not have much bearing on the case for the reason that specific/separate charge under relevant provisions of law (Sections 302 and 376-D of IPC) have been framed against the accused, but admittedly Court has committed serious mistake while passing the order of framing of charge, which needs to be 2026:HHC:25402 21 corrected by mentioning the correct description of the charge in the daily order sheet. Aforesaid mistake requires to be corrected immediately by following due procedure of law. Registrar General of this Court to apprise Court concerned with regard to aforesaid mistake, enabling it to take corrective steps expeditiously. Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. June 29, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge Digitally signed by RAJEEV RATURI DN: C=IN, CN=RAJEEV RATURI, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, ST=Himachal Pradesh, postalCode=171001, serialNumber= 953796d6b710fd2afc82c7ba37bf487d353855551c0227afb3662f48 e1b7c3ca, telephoneNumber= 01caca2c767601b121016e4cef0d20c55478e50966db2af7ca3cb8c cec2635f6 Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.07.01 15:26:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1 RAJEEV RATURI