IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1170 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Amit Kumar, Police Station Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Amit Kumar, who is behind bars since 15.02.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.48/2026, dated 15.02.2026, under Sections 18, 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Amit Kumar, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Police Station Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, 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 15.02.2026, Police received secret information that owner of Ashu Mills Dhaba, namely Amit Kumar, i.e. petitioner herein, and his helper namely Ratnesh, resident of Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, indulge in illegal trade of narcotics. Police received further information that at present, both the above named persons are looking for customers for sale of opium. On the basis of afore information, Police, after having associated independent witnesses, raided the Dhaba, named hereinabove, and allegedly recovered 812 grams of opium from the counter of Ashu Mills Dhaba in the presence of independent witnesses. 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, both the accused are behind bars. 4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Ms. Yogita Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated because opium recovered from his Dhaba does not belong to him, -3- rather same was brought by co-accused Ratnesh, who subsequently disclosed to Police that present bail petitioner Amit Kumar had not paid any amount qua aforesaid quantity of contraband, rather he had brought it from his village. She states that since co-accused Ratnesh was working in the Dhaba of present bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that above named Ratnesh has categorically admitted factum of his having brought the opium from Uttar Pradesh/Rajasthan, there was no occasion, if any, for Police to arrest the present bail petitioner, who though had no knowledge with regard to possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband by co-accused Ratnesh. She states that otherwise also Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, this Court, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is a first-time offender and rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted, may consider release of petitioner on regular bail. 6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 had definite knowledge with regard to possession of intermediate quantity of contraband by co-accused -4- Ratnesh, who had brought the same from Uttar Pradesh/Rajasthan. He states that since bail petitioner had specific knowledge with regard to possession of intermediate quantity of contraband and yet he failed to inform the Police with regard to the same, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the investigating agency while registering case against him. He states that bail petitioner is a drug peddler 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. 7. 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 came to be recovered from the Dhaba of the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses, however, this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband recovered from the Dhaba of the present petitioner was actually brought by co-accused Ratnesh from Uttar Pradesh/Rajasthan and for purchase of same, no money was paid by the present petitioner, rather co-accused Ratnesh himself purchased the contraband from the States, referred hereinabove. 8. Though it has been claimed at the behest of respondent-State that present bail petitioner was having definite knowledge with regard to the fact that co-accused Ratnesh -5- possesses intermediate quantity of contraband, but yet he failed to inform the Police, however, such fact, if any, is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since in past, no case stands registered against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that co-accused Ratnesh had categorially disclosed to the Police that no money was paid by present bail petitioner for purchase of contraband recovered from the Dhaba, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, especially when he has already suffered for more than five months. Moreover, this Court finds that on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. 9. 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 -6- to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 -7- 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 ₹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; (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. -8- 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 14th July, 2026 Rajeev Raturi