IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1109 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.08.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Prem Lata .....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. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, 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. HC Sushant Sharma, No.13, IO, Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, namely Prem Lata, who is behind bars since 31.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.22 of 2026, dated 31.01.2026, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Sushant Sharma, No.13, IO, Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report reveals that on 31.01.2026, at 12:10 AM, Police stopped car bearing No.HP-01K- 9160 at Naka laid near Baloh Link Road, Kandror for checking and allegedly recovered commercial quantity of contraband, i.e. 4.053 kilograms Charas, from the boot of the car. Since occupants of the car, namely Tek Singh and Prem Lata (present petitioner), were unable to render proper plausible explanation qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, arrested both the persons named hereinabove, and since then they are behind bars. 4. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that though at the time of recovery of contraband, petitioner was present in car bearing No.HP-01K-9160, but she had no knowledge with regard -3- to transportation of commercial quantity of contraband. He submits that since driver of the car was husband of the petitioner, she was traveling with him, but didn't have any information with regard to illegal activities, if any, of her husband. He further submits that otherwise also, status report filed by respondent- State clearly reveals that petitioner herein has been booked in the case at hand on the ground that sum of ₹7,000/- was transferred in the bank account by one co-accused Pooran Chand, who had allegedly handed over the contraband to husband of the petitioner for selling it to Dharam Singh. He submits that amount though was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner, but as per the admitted case of the prosecution, bank account of the petitioner was linked to the Google Pay account of the co-accused Tek Singh, to whom actually co-accused Pooran Chand had sent sum of ₹7,000/-. He submits that petitioner herein has been falsely implicated. There is nothing to suggest that in the past she had been indulging in illegal trade of narcotics and as such, rigors of Section 37 of the Act do not come in her way for granting bail in the case at hand. He further submits that till date prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness, meaning thereby that considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial. 6. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of charge-sheet in competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains -4- to be recovered from petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by her, she does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that present petitioner was indulging in illegal trade of narcotics along with her husband and as such, she has been rightly booked in the case at hand. Mr. Kahol states that factum with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the case at hand can be inferred from the fact that sum of ₹7,000/- was deposited by co-accused Pooran Chand in the bank account of petitioner, who now claims herself to be innocent. Lastly, Mr. Kahol states that since on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are attracted, petitioner herein cannot be enlarged on bail, especially in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, Criminal Appeal No.3037 of 2026, decided on 02.06.2026. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that at the time of recovery of contraband from the car in question, present petitioner was also present in car, but question whether she had any kind of knowledge with regard to possession and transportation of commercial quantity of contraband in the car being driven by co-accused Tek Singh, who happens to be husband of the present petitioner, can only be decided in the totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution. -5- 8. No doubt, on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the car, petitioner being one of the occupants of the car is also answerable and as such, has been named as an accused, however, having taken note of the fact that co-accused Pooran Chand had handed over the contraband to Tek Singh for further delivering the same to Dharam Singh, coupled with the fact that present petitioner is wife of co-accused Tek Singh, this Court has reason to presume and believe that present petitioner had no knowledge with regard to transportation and possession, if any, of the contraband in the car by her husband. 9. 9. No doubt, it has come in the evidence that co-accused Dharam Singh was traveling in vehicle ahead of the car being driven by co-accused Tek Singh, but such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to conclude the guilt of the petitioner who, admittedly being the wife of co-accused Tek Singh, can be said to be traveling in the car, from which subsequently commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered. True it is that sum of ₹7,000/- was deposited in the bank account of petitioner, but once it is admitted case of the prosecution that bank account of the petitioner was linked to the Google Pay account of the husband of the petitioner, possibility of her having no knowledge with regard to transaction cannot be ruled out. 10. No doubt, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are attracted in present case on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, however, bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act -6- nowhere suggests that an accused involved in commercial quantity of contraband cannot be granted bail, rather, as per the aforesaid provision of law, Court can proceed to grant bail in commercial quantity, but before that, opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the prosecution, and in case Court comes to conclusion that accused has been falsely implicated and in the event of his/her being enlarged on bail, there is no possibility of his/her indulging in such activities again, it can proceed to grant bail in case involving commercial quantity of contraband. 11. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner was sitting in the car from where commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, but once it has not been disputed that she is wife of the co-accused Tek Singh, who at the relevant time was driving the vehicle, coupled with the fact that in past, no case under the NDPS Act stands registered against petitioner, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that the twin conditions, as laid down under Section 37 of the Act have been satisfied in the case at hand. There is no overwhelming/direct evidence available on record to suggest that petitioner had knowledge, if any, with regard to transportation/possession of commercial quantity of contraband in the car which was driven by her husband. Similarly, there is nothing on record to suggest that in past, any case under the NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner and at present, there is nothing to suggest that in the -7- event of her being enlarged on bail, petitioner may again indulge in these activities. 12. No doubt, in case relied upon by learned Additional Advocate General in Balraj Singh (supra), it has been held that in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, no bail can be granted till the time twin conditions as provided under aforesaid provision of law is passed by the applicant, but in the case at hand, for the two reasons as discussed hereinabove, this Court at this stage is persuaded to conclude that it would be too premature at this stage to conclude complicity of the petitioner in the case at hand. On account of non-registration of case in past, it can also not be concluded that in the event of her being enlarged on bail, she may again indulge in these activities. Moreover, this Court finds that both husband and wife, Tek Singh and petitioner, who are having two minor children, are behind bars and there is none to take care of them and as such, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 13. 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, as such, her incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. -8- Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, she 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 -9- 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. 17. 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. 18. 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, present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹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) she shall make herself 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) she shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; -10- (c) she 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) she shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 19. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 20. 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. 21. 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 06th August, 2026 Rajeev Raturi