2026:HHC:27026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.999 of 2026 Decided on: 07.07.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Noop Ram ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ………..Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan and Ms. Preeti, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, _______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Bail petitioner, namely Noop Ram, aged 77 years, who is behind the bars since 24.02.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.32 of 2024, dated 24.02.2024, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ( for short ‘Act’), registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent/State has filed status report and HC Ashok Kumar No.44, Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:27026 2. Close security of record/status report reveals that on 24.02.2024, at about 12.10 AM, police, after having noticed suspicious conduct of one person walking on foot near, Bathad, asked him to stop, but he got perplexed and made an attempt to run away. While doing so, he threw one bag on the left side of the road. Taking note of suspicious activities of aforesaid person, police, after having associated independent witnesses, deemed it necessary to conduct personal search of the person as well as the bag thrown by him and allegedly recovered 5Kg 5 grams of charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR and since then bail petitioner is behind the bars. Prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner approached learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh by way of Bail Application No.100 of 2026, titled Noop Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, but same came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2026 on the ground that petitioner-accused possessed commercial quantity of contraband and as such, rigour of Section 37 are attracted. Though, in afore case, it came to be pleaded at the behest of the petitioner herein that as per Revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs), petitioner, who is 77 years old, is required to be released, but 3 2026:HHC:27026 careful perusal of order dated 06.05.2026, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh reveals that such prayer of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that recommendation of under Trial Review Committees cannot be a ground for a bail. In afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. V.S.Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Arsh Chauhan and Ms. Preeti, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that though it is yet to be established on record by the prosecution that petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, but even otherwise, he is entitled to bail as per Revised Standard Operating Procedure for under Trial Review Committees, which clearly provides that person of more than 70 years of age can be enlarged on bail even in the case registered under NDPS Act. He also argued that otherwise also, petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years, but till date, prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial and as such, his prayer for grant of bail also deserves to be considered on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that having 4 2026:HHC:27026 taken note of the fact that petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, 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 in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such activities. He states that since 7 witnesses, out of 12 prosecution witnesses, already stand examined and Court below has fixed the date for recording the statements of remaining witnesses on 29th & 30th August, 2026, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial cannot be accepted. He also supported the findings given by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh that recommendation of under Trial Review Committees is not applicable in the cases registered NDPS Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, because material adduced on record by the prosecution, clearly reveals that commercial quantity of contraband from the conscious possession of the petitioner was recovered in the presence of independent witnesses. Similarly, this Court finds that prayer for enlargement of petitioner on bail on the ground of inordinate 5 2026:HHC:27026 delay in conclusion of trial is not tenable for the reason that prosecution has already examined seven witnesses, out of 12 prosecution witnesses and for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses, learned Court below has already fixed the matter on 29th & 30th August, 2026. However, having taken note of Revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Under Trial Review Committees (UTRGs), framed by National Legal Services Authority in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in WP(C) 406/2013-In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, who is 77 years old, for enlargement on bail deserves to be considered. 6. As per aforesaid SOP, Office of Secretary, DLSA with the aid of empanelled panel lawyers, Retired Judicial Officer and law students trained as PLVs, if required and available, shall draw list of UTPs/Convicts eligible for consideration by the UTRC out of Data sent to him by Jail Superintendent of every jail in District and thereafter UTPS/Convicts falling under the categories as prescribed in Clause 2.2. of Step-II, shall be placed before Under Trial Review Committees, which reads as under:- STEP 2: Processing of Data by Secretary, DLSA 2.1 The office of Secretary, DLSA, with the aid of empaneled panel lawyers, Retired Judicial Officers and law students trained as PLVs, if required and available, shall draw list of UTPs/Convicts eligible for consideration by the UTRC out of Data sent to him from Step-I in the light of criteria laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) 406/2013-Re-Inhuman 6 2026:HHC:27026 Conditions in 1382 Prisons, as per detailed hereunder (Para 2.2). If any further details are required by the Secretary, DLSA from any court or from the Jail Superintendent or from the police authorities, the same may be ascertained by the Secretary DLSA. Thereafter, the Secretary DLSA shall prepare a list of eligible UTPs for consideration of UTRC in the Excel Sheet/Soft form as per Annexure A & B. 2.2 Cases of UTPs / Convicts falling under following categories shall be considered by the Secretary, DLSA for placing them before the UTRC:- 2.2.1 UTPs eligible under Section 436A Cr.P.C./479 BNSS [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2015] 2.2.2 UTPs who are first time offenders and have completed one-third of their sentence, and eligible as per Section 479 BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19th November, 2024] 2.2.3 UTPs granted bail by the court, but have not been able to furnish sureties. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2015] 2.2.4 UTPs accused of compoundable offences. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2015] 2.2.5 UTPs eligible under Section 436 of Cr.P.C/478 BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 05th February, 2016] 2.2.6 UTPs who may be covered under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, or Section 360 CrPC/401 BNSS and can be released on probation of good conduct or on admonition. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 05th February, 2016] 2.2.7 Convicts who have undergone their sentence, or are entitled to be considered for pre mature release, or are entitled to release pursuant to remission already granted to them. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 05th February, 2016] 2.2.8 UTPs become eligible to be released on bail on Section167(2)(a)(i) & under (ii) CrPC/Section 187 (3) (ⅰ) & (ii) BNSS, read with Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, persons accused 1985 of (where Section 19/24/27A or for offences involving commercial quantity) and where investigation is not completed in 60/90/180 days, as the case may be. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.9 UTPs who are imprisoned for offences which carry a maximum punishment of 2 years. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.10 Persons detained under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. i.e. u/s 107, 108, 109 and 151 of Cr.P.C/ 7 2026:HHC:27026 Sections 126, 127, 128 and 170 of the BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.11 UTPs who are sick or infirm including terminally ill, who require specialized medical treatment. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.12 Women UTPs. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.13 UTPs who are first time offenders between the ages 18 and 21 years and in custody for the offence punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment and have undergone at least 1/4th of the maximum sentence possible. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.14 UTPs who are of unsound mind and are to be dealt with as per Chapter XXV CrPC/Chapter XXVII of the BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.15 UTPs eligible for release under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C/Section 480(6) of the BNSS wherein in a case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016] 2.2.16 UTPs who are and above the age of 70 years. 2.3 The DLSA Secretary must inform the District & Sessions Judge that the complete list has been prepared and request him to convene the UTRC meeting at the earliest. A copy of the list may also be shared with other members of the UTRC so that they can come prepared for the meeting. STEP 3: Processing of identified cases by UTRC 3.1 The District & Sessions Judge shall convene the UTRC meeting as soon as the intimation is received from the DLSA, Secretary about the completion of the lists. 3.2 UTRC shall consider the cases shortlisted by the Secretary, DLSA and make recommendations for release/ appropriate action. 3.3 Upon processing the individual cases, the recommendations of UTRC may include:- 3.3.1 In case UTPs covered under Section 436A Cr.P.C/479 BNSS.: UTRC may recommend to concerned trial court to take up the matter and consider him/her for release on bail if there are no special reasons to deny bail, with or without sureties. 3.3.2 UTPs released on bail by the court, but have not been able to furnish sureties: The UTRC may recommend the trial court to examine the reason why the accused is not furnishing surety/ bail bonds and if he/she is unable to do so due to poverty, then the trial court may consider reducing the bail amount on the 8 2026:HHC:27026 application of the lawyer under S.440, CrPC/484 BNSS or release on personal bond. 3.3.3 UTPs accused of compoundable offences: The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider if the offence can be compounded between the complainant and the accused as per law. 3.3.4 UTPs eligible under Section 436 of Cr.P.C./478 BNSS: The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider releasing such an accused on personal bond in case he is unable to furnish bail bond within seven days of bail order. 3.3.5 UTPs who may be covered under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, namely accused of offence under Sections 379, 380, 381, 404, 420 IPC/303(2), 305, 306, 315, 318(4) BNS or alleged to be an offence not more than 2 years imprisonment: The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider invoking of Probation of Offenders Act in fit cases as also plea bargaining in appropriate cases. 3.3.6 Convicts who have undergone their sentence or are entitled to release because of remission granted to them: The UTRC may examine the reason for non- release of the convict and the Officer in-charge of prison may be recommended to look into the matter so that the convict is released as soon as possible. 3.3.7 UTPs become eligible to be released on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Code/ 187 (3) (i) & (ii) read with Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (where persons accused of Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity) and where investigation is not completed in 60/90/180 days: The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider release of the accused in cases where chargesheet is not submitted within the statutory time frame. 3.3.8 UTPs who are imprisoned for offences which carry a maximum punishment of 2 years: The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider releasing of the UTP on bail in such cases. 3.3.9 UTPs who are detained under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. i.e. under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 151 of Cr.P.C./126, 127, 128 and 170 of BNSS: The Executive Magistrate/ District Magistrate court may be recommended to release/discharge such persons with or without conditions or to make an order reducing the amount of the security or the number of sureties or the time for which security has been required. 3.3.10 UTPs who are sick or infirm and require specialized medical treatment: The UTRC may examine the medical condition of the inmate and if it is found that the inmate is very sick and specialized treatment is essential for survival, then the UTRC may recommend the trial court to consider granting bail on medical 9 2026:HHC:27026 ground, as provided under S.437, CrPC/480 BNSS, even for temporary period. 3.3.11 UTPs women offenders: Women under trial prisoners who are not accused of serious offences may be considered for release on bail under S.437, CrPC/480 BNSS, especially they are first time offenders by the concerned trial courts. The UTRC may also recommend suitable measures under the directions of the Hon’ble Court in R. D. Upadhyay vs State of A.P. & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 1946). 3.3.12 UTPs who are first time offenders between the ages 19 and 21 years and in custody for the offence punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment and have suffered at least 1/4th of the maximum sentence possible: The UTRC may request the trial court to consider granting bail to such young offenders. If the person is found guilty in the course of trial, benefit of S.3 or S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, may be given to the accused. 3.3.13 UTPs who are of unsound mind and must be dealt with Chapter XXV of the Code/ Chapter XXVII of the BNSS: UTRC may recommend the trial court to take appropriate steps in accordance with Chapter XXV of the Code/ Chapter XXVII of the BNSS and provide adequate treatment to such inmates. 3.3.14 UTPs eligible for release under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C./ 480 (6) BNSS, wherein in a case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence has not been concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case: UTRC may request the trial court to consider granting bail to such UTPs under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C./ 480 (6) BNSS 3.4 The UTRC shall enter its recommendation in column no. 21-23 of Annexure-A and column no.15-17 of Annexure-B. 3.4.1 Recommendation of UTRC 3.4.2 Date of recommendation 3.4.2 Brief reasons for UTRC recommendation 3.5 The UTRC shall share recommendations with the concerned Trial Court/Jail Superintendent and Secretary, DLSA. Jail Superintendent shall bring it to the notice of UTP/Convict. Secretary, DLSA shall instruct the panel lawyers to move appropriate application in legal aided cases. The Trial Courts may deal with the recommendations in the manner deemed appropriate for each particular case with the assistance of Legal Aid/Private Lawyer.” 7. After receipt of complete information, DLSA shall inform District and Sessions Judge to convene UTRCs meeting 10 2026:HHC:27026 at the earliest, whereafter under Step-3 of SOP, District and Sessions Judge shall convene the UTRC meeting and consider the cases shortlisted by the Secretary, DLSA and make recommendations for release/appropriate action. Clause 3.3.7 of Step-3 clearly provides that UTPs become eligible to be released on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Code/ 187(3)(i)(ii) read with Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (where persons accused of Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity) and where investigation is not completed in 60/90/180 days, the UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider release of the accused in cases where charge sheet is not submitted within the statutory time frame. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, vide communication dated 17th April 2016, Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Kullu informed Sh. Chuneshwar Thakur, Advocate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh with regard to his being appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the bail petitioner for filing the application in the competent court of law for his release on the basis of Under Trial Review Committees recommendation made on 16.04.2026, wherein case of the petitioner came to be identified in the category 2.2.16 of Step-2, which provides that UTPS, who are above the age of 70 years, can be recommended for consideration of bail. 11 2026:HHC:27026 9. Though, pursuant to aforesaid instructions received by the counsel, named hereinabove, an application was filed before the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, annexing therewith recommendation made by Under Trial Review Committees, thereby recommending the case of the petitioner for bail under category 16 of Step-2, but as has been taken note hereinabove, learned Special Judge-II, Kullu ignored the same and proceeded to record that petitioner herein, who is accused of having possessed commercial quantity of contraband cannot be granted benefit of aforesaid recommendation . However, having carefully perused SOP framed by National Legal Services Authority, in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court WP(C) 406/2013-In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, coupled with the fact that there is a provision to recommend the case of under trial prisoner, who has attained the age more than 70 years, for grant of bail, coupled with the fact that petitioner has been behind the bars for more than two years and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in shortest possible time, this Court is persuaded to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. 10. 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 12 2026:HHC:27026 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 13 2026:HHC:27026 reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 13. 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 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 14 2026:HHC:27026 Rs.5,00,000/- 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 July 07,2026 (shankar)