IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1184 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Gulshan .....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. Sneha Kaushal, 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. HC Jaspreet Gupta, No.230, Police Station Rampur, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Gulshan, who is behind bars since 19.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.105 of 2025, dated 19.11.2025, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Jaspreet Gupta, No.230, Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 19.11.2025, Police, after having received secret information that persons sitting in car bearing No.HP-06A-8258, which at present is parked near Kuddidhar, are indulging in illegal trade of narcotics, at 03:05 PM, reached the spot and intercepted the aforesaid vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses. Since occupants of the car got perplexed and started making excuses, Police deemed it necessary to cause search of occupants of the car as well as of the vehicle, and allegedly recovered 14.30 grams of heroin from the footmat of the rear seat. Since occupants of the car, namely Piyush and present bail petitioner Gulshan, were unable to render proper explanation qua possession of aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, Police, after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, and since then, present bail petitioner is behind bars, whereas the co- accused Piyush already stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur (Annexure P-2). Though petitioner herein had also approached afore Court for the grant of bail, but his prayer was rejected on the ground that in the past, two cases under the NDPS Act stand registered against him. 4. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law, and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, -3- he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. While fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to the filing of the Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, keeping in view the gravity of the 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 has been selling drugs to the young generation in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He states that in the past, two cases stand registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, which itself suggests that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who, in the event of being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Ms. Sneha Kaushal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that the petitioner herein has been falsely implicated, rather, this Court finds from the record that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner as well as co-accused Piyush in the presence of independent witnesses, however, having taken note of the fact that the bail petitioner is behind bars for approximately eight months, -4- coupled with the fact that the co-accused Piyush already stands enlarged on bail, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail. Moreover, this Court finds that on account of the recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the present case. 7. True it is that in past, two cases under the NDPS Act stand registered against the petitioner, but such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to conclude that the bail petitioner is a drug peddler, rather, possibility of his having become a drug addict can also not be ruled out. In case petitioner has become a drug addict, the best course is to provide him adequate medical facility, so that he is brought back to the mainstream at the earliest. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, rather, in that situation, he may become a hardened criminal. 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, especially when he has already suffered for approximately 8 months. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate -5- 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. 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 -6- 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. 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 ₹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 -7- 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. 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 16th July, 2026 Rajeev Raturi