IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1241 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Sukhvinder Singh .....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. Vijender Katoch, 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. SI Pushpinder Singh, IO, Police Station Indora, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, namely Sukhvinder Singh, who is behind bars since 26.04.2026, 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.63/2026, dated 26.04.2026, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and SI Pushpinder Singh, IO, Police Station Indora, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available to this Court reveals that on 25.04.2026 at 9:55 PM, Police, after having received secret information that two persons travelling in motorcycle bearing No.PB-06-BK-2273, coming from Indora- Kathgarh road to Chuharpur-Indora barrier, are transporting contraband, laid naka and stopped the aforesaid motorcycle for checking. Since persons sitting on the motorcycle got perplexed and started making excuses, Police deemed it necessary to cause their search as well as of their vehicle and allegedly recovered 6.28 grams heroin from the toolbox of motorcycle. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be given on record, qua possession of contraband, as detailed hereinabove, Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR against the occupants of the motorcycle, including present bail petitioner. Co- accused, namely Deep Singh, was driving the motorcycle at the relevant time and the said motorcycle was owned by his mother. Petitioner herein was a pillion rider in afore motorcycle, but since intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from the toolbox of the motorcycle, petitioner along with co-accused, Deep Singh, also came to be named in FIR, and since then he is behind bars. 4. Though in past, he had also applied for grant of bail, but such prayer of him was rejected on the ground that in past, 3 cases under the NDPS Act stand registered against him. -3- 5. 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 bail. 6. 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, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that in past, as many as three cases stand registered against the petitioner, which itself suggests 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 these activities. 7. Having taken note of the fact that intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from the toolbox of the motorcycle in question, on which petitioner was a pillion rider, that too in the presence of independent witnesses, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. However, having carefully perused status report, this Court finds that motorcycle from which alleged recovery of contraband came to be effected belongs to mother of the co-accused Deep Singh, who has been already enlarged on bail and petitioner herein was pillion rider on the said motorcycle. Though petitioner herein, being -4- pillion rider in the motorcycle from where intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered, allegedly came to be booked under the relevant provisions of law, but it is yet to be established on record by the prosecution that co-accused Deep Singh was possessing intermediate quantity of contraband in his motorcycle with the consent and knowledge of the present bail petitioner, who was merely a pillion rider. True it is that in past, three cases under the NDPS Act stand registered against the petitioner, but that may not be sufficient to conclude the guilt of the petitioner in the case at hand, which shall be decided independently on the basis of evidence as well as material adduced on record by the respective parties. 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 to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. -5- 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 nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character -6- 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. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the -7- 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 21st July, 2026 Rajeev Raturi