IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CrMP(M) No.1237 of 2026 Decided on: 21.07.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Praveen Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ………..Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Verma, 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 Surinder Kumar, PS Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, present in person along with record. _______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner, who is behind bars since 13.06.2026, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.76 of 2026, dated 30.04.2026, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered with Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Respondent/State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 29.04.2026 at 08:35 pm, Police stopped car bearing No.HP-01-D-9937 coming from Joginder Nagar side for checking. Since occupants of the car got perplexed and started making excuses, Police deemed it necessary to cause search of the vehicle as well as occupants and accordingly, after having associated independent witnesses, effected search and allegedly recovered polythene bag containing 656 grams of charas/cannabis from the foot-mat of the rear seat. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, and occupants of the car, namely Shubham, Dinesh Kumar, Akshay and present bail petitioner were taken into custody. Co-accused Dinesh Kumar, Shubham and Akshay stand enlarged on bail, whereas present bail petitioner is behind bars. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to completion of investigation, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity 3 of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant of regular bail deserves outright rejection. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and he indulges in illegal trade of narcotics, 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 such activities. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Naresh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from the car bearing No.HP-01-D-9937, wherein petitioner was travelling along with co-accused Shubham, Dinesh Kumar and Akshay, who at this juncture stand enlarged on bail. Though petitioner had also applied for bail in past, but such petition was rejected on the ground that in past, one criminal case stands registered against him under the ND & PS Act. Another factor, which weighed with the Court below, while rejecting his earlier bail petition, was financial transactions inter se bail-petitioner as well as co-accused Dinesh, who has been booked under Section 29 of ND & PS Act. Since co-accused, as detailed hereinabove, already stand enlarged on bail, coupled 4 with the fact that contraband involved in the case at hand is of intermediate quantity, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. No doubt, in past, one case stands registered against the petitioner under ND & PS Act, but that cannot be a ground to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, especially when, guilt, if any, of the petitioner in one pending case is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already remained in custody for more than two and a half months. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 6. Needless to say, 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 5 appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of 6 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. 10. 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. 11. In view of the above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the 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 7 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 14. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 21, 2026 (Sunil)