IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1090 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Arun Verma @ Bunty .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Dulo Ram, Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Arun Verma @ Bunty, who is behind bars since 03.04.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.27/2026, dated 03.04.2026, under Sections 18 & 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Dulo Ram, Police 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Station Dhalli, District Shimla, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 03.04.2026, at 02:45 pm, Police patrolling party while present near IHM, Kufri, received secret information that bail petitioner indulges in illegal trade of narcotics and at present, he can be apprehended selling contraband to the tourists at Kufri. On the basis of aforesaid information, Police, after having associated independent witnesses, apprehended bail petitioner, who at relevant time was found selling contraband to the tourists and allegedly recovered 30.110 grams charas and 127.090 grams opium. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, and since then, he is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner has been falsely implicated because no contraband was recovered from his possession, rather same was planted. He states that otherwise also, bail petitioner is first time offender and as such, deserves leniency. He states that since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, coupled with the -3- fact that rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, this Court may consider release of bail petitioner on bail. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and he was apprehended selling contraband to tourists in Kufri and as such, 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 is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner, that petitioner herein has been falsely implicated, because intermediate quantity of contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than three months, coupled with the fact that rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, this -4- Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. Moreover, this Court also finds that in past, no case stands registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act and as such, he, otherwise being first offender, deserves leniency. 7. Though it came to be vehemently argued by learned Additional Advocate General that bail petitioner is a drug peddler, but no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record to prove aforesaid fact. Though case at hand shall be decided by the Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, however, having taken note of aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for more than three months. 8. 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, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed 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 -5- to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind -6- 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. 12. 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. 13. 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, present 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 ₹1,00,000/- 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; (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. -7- 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 06th July, 2026 Rajeev Raturi