2026:HHC:28427 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1110 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026. Bhavan Sood ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Saurabh Ahluwalia, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 60 of 2025, dated 14.03.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and Sections 177, 181 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:28427 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were present near Sabji Mandi, Kullu, on 14.03.2025 at about 03:10 p.m., when one person came riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-34E-4261 without a helmet. The police signalled the rider to stop the motorcycle, but he turned the motorcycle and attempted to flee from the spot. However, the police apprehended him. He had a backpack with him. The police joined Om Prakash and Vishal Sood as independent witnesses, searched the backpack, and recovered 6.88 grams of Charas and 6.52 grams of heroin. The person disclosed his name as Bhavan Sood, the present petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the contraband. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The co-accused has been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 14.3.2025. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-34E-4261 3 2026:HHC:28427 came to the spot at about 3.10 PM. The rider was not wearing a helmet. The police signalled him to stop, but he tried to turn and sped away. The police apprehended and searched him in the presence of independent witnesses. The police recovered 6.88 grams of charas and 6.52 grams of heroin. The rider identified himself as Bhavan Sood. The police arrested him and seized the charas and heroin. As per the report of analysis, the heroin was confirmed to be a sample of diacetylmorphine and the charas was confirmed to be the extract of cannabis. The police obtained the call detail record and the bank account statement. The police arrested the co-accused Khekh Ram based on the call detail record, financial transaction and the interrogation of the petitioner. F.I.R. No. 69 of 2001, dated 27.05.2001, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, F.I.R. No. 477 of 2011, dated 26.08.2011 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 279 of IPC, F.I.R. No.10 of 2013, dated 15.01.2013, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of NDPS Act, F.I.R. No.244 of 2014, dated 05.08.2014, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of NDPS Act, F.I.R. No.12 of 2019, dated 29.01.2019, for the commission an offence punishable 4 2026:HHC:28427 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, F.I.R. No. 102 of 2019, dated 05.05.2019, for the commission an offence punishable under Section 21 of NDPS Act, and F.I.R. No. 249 of 2023, dated 13.12.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 181 and 196 of M.V. Act are pending against the petitioner. He was convicted in F.I.R. No. 114 of 2o09, dated 15.03.2009, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act by the learned Fast Track Court, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., on 31.12.2009. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses with effect from 26.10.2026 till 31.10.2026. The co- accused Khekh Ram has been released on bail, whereas the petitioner is in custody. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Saurabh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Saurabh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The co-accused Khekh Ram has been 5 2026:HHC:28427 released on bail. More than 1 year has elapsed since the petitioner's arrest, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Khekh Ram vs State of H.P. 2026: HHC 17429 and Bhag Singh @ Sanju @ Pindha vs State of H.P. 2026: HHC: 20690 in support of his submissions. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Narcotics are adversely affecting society, and the petitioner should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the reports carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: 6 2026:HHC:28427 (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing 7 2026:HHC:28427 with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be 8 2026:HHC:28427 a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; 9 2026:HHC:28427 (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the 10 2026:HHC:28427 case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. It has been submitted that the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment, which can be awarded to him, considering the quantity of heroin stated to be found in his possession. The police have not completed the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. This submission has to be accepted as correct. The status report mentions that the petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2025 with 6.88 grams of Charas and 6.52 grams of heroin. This shows that the petitioner has undergone about one year’s imprisonment. 11. The Central Government has specified 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, which means that the person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years. If the principle of proportionality is applied, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to 11 2026:HHC:28427 him. This Court held in Shubham Chaudhary vs State of H.P 2026: HHC:6937 that where the accused has already undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment which can be awarded to him in case of his conviction, his further detention is not justified. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is not entitled to bail on this consideration. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024: INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused in case of long incarceration. It was observed: “10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.” 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his 12 2026:HHC:28427 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 14. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 13 2026:HHC:28427 15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Hamirpur, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th July, 2026 (Ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204a b0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c55380 3537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-07-16 11:30:03 RAVINDE R KUMAR