2026:HHC:30923 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No. 1300 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gaffar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner Gaffar, who is behind bars since 26.4.2026, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.84, dated 23.04.2026, under Sections 21 and 29 of ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent/State has filed status report and HC Sandeep Singh, has come present with record. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 22.04.2026, police party present near Yamuna bridge received secret information that person namely Ravikant alias Bunty, indulges in illegal trade of narcotics and at present, he is 2026:HHC:30923 2 transporting huge quantity of contraband in vehicle bearing registration No. HP17G2868. On the basis of aforesaid secret information, police after associating independent witnesses, intercepted the aforesaid vehicle, wherein two persons namely Ravikant alias Bunty and Vikas were found seated. Allegedly, police recovered one bag from the afore vehicle containing prohibited drug. 3. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record for possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities lodged FIR and since then they are behind bars. Allegedly Ravikant alias Bunty during his investigation disclosed that he had purchased the contraband from person namely Gufran alias Billa. On the basis of aforesaid information, police raided the house of present bail petitioner Ghaffar, who happens to be father of co-accused Gufran and allegedly recovered 31 boxes containing 7,440 capsules of prohibited drug i.e. Dicyclomine HCL, Tramadol HCL Acetaminothen Capsules. Since at the time of raid, present bail petitioner Gaffar i.e.father of Gufran, was unable to produce any license for possession of aforesaid prohibited drugs, police also made him an accused and arrested him on 26.04.2026, and since then he is behind bars. Co-accused Gufran alias Billa, son of present petitioner Gaffar, surrendered before the police and made a statement that 2026:HHC:30923 3 contraband recovered from the house of present bail petitioner belongs to him as he runs the shop of chemist and his father i.e. present bail petitioner had no knowledge about the same. He also admitted to the police that he had been supplying contraband to co-accused Ravikant. He also disclosed that contraband recovered from house of present bail petitioner was also to be supplied by him to Ravikant alias Bunty. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and Challan is yet to be filed, bail petitioner has approached this Court in instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, Shri Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from present petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol states that though co- accused Gufran alias Billa stated before police that contraband recovered from the house of present petitioner belongs to him and present petitioner had no knowledge about the same, but on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from his house, bail petitioner has been rightly booked under Section 21 and 29 of NDPS Act. He states that otherwise also, petitioner being father of co-accused Gufran coupled with the fact that contraband came to be recovered from his house, cannot claim 2026:HHC:30923 4 that he didn't have any knowledge about storage of contraband in his house. He states that since petitioner is accused of heinous crime under the NDPS Act, having adverse impact on society, he may not be enlarged on bail because in that eventuality, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the house of the present bail petitioner, who otherwise claims himself to be innocent. Admittedly, as per status report, co-accused Gufran alias Billa, who happens to be son of present bail petitioner, runs a chemist shop at Village Goverdhanpur Dhulani, one door of which, opens towards one room of the house. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that co-accused Gufran alias Billa made a statement to police that contraband recovered from house present bail petitioner belongs to him and his father had no knowledge about the same, rather he was under the impression that his son i.e. co-accused Gufran, must have kept it as he runs a chemist shop. 6. No doubt commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the house of the present bail petitioner, but once it is not in dispute that co-accused Gufran alias Billa runs a chemist shop, which is 2026:HHC:30923 5 adjacent to the house of present bail petitioner and its one door opens towards a portion of the house coupled with the fact that co-accused Gufran alias Billa has already made a statement to police that contraband belongs to him and his father Ghaffar had no knowledge about the same, it would be too premature at this stage to conclude complicity of the present bail petitioner in the case at hand. No doubt petitioner being owner of the house is answerable for storing of contraband, but since contraband was in the shape of prohibited medicine coupled with the fact that his son, co- accused Gufran, was running a medicine shop, petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt that he had no knowledge with regard to storage of prohibited drug in his house. Co-accused Gufran alias Billa has further disclosed to police that contraband recovered from house of present bail petitioner was stored by him and same was to be supplied to co-accused Ravikant alias Bunty. 7. No doubt on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of Act attracted in the present case, but bare perusal of provisions of Section 37 of Act nowhere suggests that Court cannot proceed to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband. Rather in such like cases, Court after having afforded due opportunity of being heard to Public Prosecutor, can always proceed to 2026:HHC:30923 6 grant bail to the accused if it is satisfied that he/she has been falsely implicated and there is no likelihood of his/her indulging in these activities again. 8. Admittedly, on account of statement made by co-accused Gufran alias Billa, who happens to be son of present petitioner, this Court is persuaded to conclude that present bail petitioner had no knowledge with regard to storage of commercial quantity of contraband, rather he was under impression that same may have been kept by his son, who admittedly at the time of recovery, was running a chemist shop. Moreover, this Court finds that in past, no case stands registered against present bail petitioner and as such, there is nothing to suggest that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may again indulge in these activities. Moreover, this Court finds that in investigation it has come that entire financial transaction was inter-se co-accused Gufran alias Billa and Ravikant through Vikas. 9. 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 2026:HHC:30923 7 petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 10. 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 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. 11. 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. 2026:HHC:30923 8 12. 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. 13. 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 of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 14. 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 2026:HHC:30923 9 case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 15. In view of 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 Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 2026:HHC:30923 10 18. The bail 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. July 27, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge