2026:HHC:34422 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.1463 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.08.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manoj Kumar ...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. J.K. Verma and Mr. Mayank Verma, 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, Manoj Kumar, who is behind the bars since 04.06.2026, 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.125 of 2026, dated 04.06.2026, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Dinesh Kumar has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:34422 2 2. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 04.06.2024, at about 7:20 AM, police party intercepted one motorcycle and allegedly recovered 209 grams of charas/cannabis from the dickey of the motorcycle in the presence of independent witnesses. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR and arrested the bail petitioner. 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. 3. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to 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. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, he specifically referred to the status report, wherein it has been 2026:HHC:34422 3 recorded that in the past, four criminal cases stood registered against the petitioner, out of which one is under NDPS Act and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail may be rejected. 4. 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 material adduced on record reveals that contraband, which is of an intermediate quantity, was recovered from the dickey of the motorcycle in the presence of independent witnesses. It is not in dispute that at the time of interception and recovery of contraband, two persons were riding the motorcycle and co-accused Shubham Kumar already stands enlarged on bail. Though the petitioner herein had also applied for bail before learned trial Court, but same was rejected on the ground that in past criminal case under the NDPS Act stands registered against the petitioner. 5. No doubt, petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, but, guilt, if any, of him is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. On account of recovery of intermediate quantity, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the instant case. True it is that in past, one case 2026:HHC:34422 4 under the NDPS Act stands registered against the petitioner, but guilt of the petitioner in that case is also yet to be established on record and as such, it would be too premature, at this stage, to conclude the complicity of the petitioner in the case at hand. 6. 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 Deputy 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 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 2026:HHC:34422 5 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 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:34422 6 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 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 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 2026:HHC:34422 7 (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. 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 application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 14. 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 14, 2026 (shankar)