2026:HHC:35057 ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.1483 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.08.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chand Prakash ...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. Vinay Thakur and Mr. P.C. Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely, Chand Prakash, who is behind the bars since 01.04.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 41 of 2026, dated 01.04.2026, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:35057 2 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Sunil Kumar has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 01.04.2026, police, after having received secret information that occupants of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-92-2466, parked near the Matiana Rest House, are indulging in illegal trade of narcotics, intercepted the aforesaid vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 34.440 grams of Chitta (Heroin) from the dashboard of the vehicle. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of the contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, registered the FIR, as detailed hereinabove and since then bail petitioner along with the co-accused, namely Shiv Dev Singh @ Sikho and Vijay Kumar, is behind the bar, whereas co-accused, namely Abhishek and Kailash stand enlarged on bail. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing further remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to 2026:HHC:35057 3 be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He submits that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact 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. While fairly admitting factum with regard to enlargement of two co-accused namely Shiv Dev Singh @ Sikho and Vijay Kumar on bail, Mr. Kahol, states that petitioner herein cannot claim parity with aforesaid persons for the reason that persons, namely Shiv Dev Singh @ Sikho and Vijay Kumar were merely occupants of the vehicle and they had no knowledge with regard to possession/transportation of contraband, if any, in the dash board of the vehicle, which at the relevant time was being driven by the present bail petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband cam to be recovered from the dash board of the vehicle being driven by the petitioner in the presence independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind the bars for more than five months, 2026:HHC:35057 4 coupled with the fact that rigours of Section 37 are not attracted on account of recovery of contraband, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer for grant of bail. 6. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that bail petitioner is a dug peddler, but no cogent and convincing evidence in that regard has been placed on record. In past, no case stands registered against the petitioner under NDPS Act and as such, he otherwise deserves leniency. Since conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind bars, where prolonged incarceration could expose him to hardened criminals. 7. 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 and as such, his incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of Fundamental Right granted 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 2026:HHC:35057 5 conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 2026:HHC:35057 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 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 2026:HHC:35057 7 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 August 19, 2026 (shankar)