2026:HHC:31676 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1318 of 2026 Date of Decision: 31.7.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paramjeet 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, Advcate. For the Respondent Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Paramjeet Singh, who is behind bars since 9.5.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 71 of 2026, dated 8.5.2026, registered at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Surinder Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:31676 2 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 8.5.2026 at about 5:00pm, police found two boys standing below electricity pole. Since their activity was suspicious, police asked them reason to stand there. Since both got perplexed after seeing the police and attempted to run away from the spot, police after apprehending them deemed it necessary to cause their search and in the presence of independent witnesses, recovered 7.89 grams of chitta. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police lodged FIR as detailed herein above, and since then, bail petitioner along with other accused namely Hassan Mohammad, is in custody. Since challan already stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, couple with the fact that his wife is in advanced stage of pregnancy, prayer has been made by the bail petitioner for grant of bail. 4. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that bail petitioner is drug addict. In the 2026:HHC:31676 3 event of his being enlarged on bail, he will not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such activities. Mr. Chauhan, states that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and it would 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 these activities. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the bail petitioner that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of bail petitioner in the presence of the independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that rigours of Section 37 of Act are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, coupled with the fact that wife of the bail petitioner is in advanced stage of pregnancy as has been certified by Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat (Annexure P-3), this court is persuaded to consider prayer of the bail petitioner for grant of bail. 6. Though Shri Ravi Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that bail petitioner is 2026:HHC:31676 4 a drug peddler, but in that regard, no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record. In past, there is no case registered against the bail petitioner under any Act, as such, possibility of bail petitioner having become drug addict can also not be ruled out. If bail petitioner has become drug addict, he is required to be sent to some rehabilitation centre so that after proper treatment, he is brought back to the mainstream. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind bars, because in that situation, there is a possibility that he may become a hardened criminal. 7. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that wife of the bail petitioner is pregnant by eight months and there is none to take care of her as has been certified by the Pradhan. 8. 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 and if he is left to incarcerate in jail during afore period, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also be violative of Section 21 of the 2026:HHC:31676 5 Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by learned Deputy 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 2026:HHC:31676 6 judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 11. 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. 12. 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. 2026:HHC:31676 7 13. 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. 14. 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, the 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 Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 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. (e) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 2026:HHC:31676 8 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 31, 2026 (manjit)