IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.1032 of 2026 Decided on: 05.08.2026 ________________________________________________________ Priya Sharma ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ASI Tej Singh, Police Station Sunder New Shimla, HP, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner Priya Sharma, who is behind bars since 10.03.2026, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.14 of 2026, dated 10.03.2026, registered at Police Station New Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “ND & PS Act”). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, respondent- State has filed status report and ASI Tej Singh has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 10.03.2026, police received secret information that person namely Sandeep Sharma, along with Priya Sharma, i.e. petitioner herein, indulge in illegal trade of narcotics, and had come to Shimla with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). On the basis of aforesaid information, police, after having associated independent witnesses, raided the basement of a house owned by Vivek Sharma and allegedly recovered 11.570 grams of LSD from the purse of co-accused Sandeep Sharma. Since present bail petitioner was also found present in the room, she also came to be named in the FIR. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police, after having completed necessary codal formal formalities, lodged FIR, arrested the bail- petitioner and since then, she, along with other co-accused Sandeep Sharma, is behind bars. During investigation, it transpired that co- accused Sandeep Sharma had disclosed to the police that person namely Nevil Harrison is coming from State of Kerala with huge quantity of LSD. Allegedly, on the relevant date and time, aforesaid person was apprehended at Kullu by police officials, namely Head Constable Sameer Kumar, Constable Ashok Kumar, Head Constable Rajesh, and Head Constable Nitesh, who recovered 1,450 strips of LSD. Police, after having recovered aforesaid strips of LSD, let off 2 Nevil Harrison, and thereafter distributed strips of LSD among themselves. Out of the recovered contraband, 616 strips of LSD were allegedly given to the co-accused Sandeep Sharma, from whose conscious possession 512 strips were subsequently recovered on the date of the alleged recovery. Police has already arrested police officials as named herein above, as well as Nevil Harrison. Bail petitioner Priya Sharma, who was found in the room with co-accused Sandeep Sharma, has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the pretext that she has been falsely implicated because she has no connection, if any, with the contraband, rather, on the date of alleged occurrence, she had gone to the room of Shubham, who is her boyfriend. Besides above, it is also stated at the behest of the petitioner that challan stands filed in the competent court of law, and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping her behind bars. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by her, she does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner is also involved in drug trafficking. He states that on date of alleged incident, bail petitioner, along with co-accused Sandeep Sharma, had allegedly come to Shimla from Kullu, to sell LSD, but before that, they 3 were apprehended by police at their residence. While referring to the medical evidence adduced on record, Mr. Kahol states that prohibited drugs were detected in the urine of the petitioner, and as such, it cannot be said that she had no involvement with narcotic substances. He states that on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are attracted, and as such, prayer of petitioner for grant of bail cannot be accepted. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioner, though was found in the room, from where contraband was recovered, but it is also admitted case of prosecution that 562 strips of LSD were recovered from the purse of co-accused Sandeep Sharma. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that in past, bail-petitioner had been indulging in illegal activities. It is also not in dispute that room, from where contraband came to be recovered, belonged to Mr. Shubham, with whom the petitioner claims to have some kind of relationship. Had police recovered contraband from her room, it would have been right in contending that bail petitioner was also involved in illegal trafficking of drugs, but once contraband came to be recovered from the purse of co-accused Sandeep Sharma, coupled with the fact that petitioner is a first-time offender and a woman, prayer made on her behalf for grant of bail deserves to be considered. 4 6. No doubt, on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of Act are attracted in the present case, but bare perusal of Section 37 of Act nowhere suggests that in cases involving huge quantity of contraband, no bail can be granted, rather, in such like cases, Court, after having afforded opportunity of hearing to Public Prosecutor, can proceed to grant the bail, if it is satisfied that bail-petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of her being enlarged on bail, she may not indulge in illegal activities. 7. Admittedly, in the case at hand, contraband never came to be recovered from the room, where bail-petitioner was present, rather same was recovered from the purse of co-accused Sandeep, lying on the mattress. Since it is not in dispute that room, from where recovery is alleged to have been effected, belongs to a person namely Shubham, coupled with the fact that bail-petitioner had some kind of relationship with Shubham, this Court has reason to presume and believe that she had no knowledge with regard to possession of contraband, if any, by the co-accused Sandeep Sharma. Similarly, there is nothing on record to suggest that in past, any case under ND & PS Act has been registered against the petitioner. If it is so, it would be premature to conclude that in the event of her being enlarged on bail, she would again indulge in these activities. Moreover, this Court finds from the status report itself that bail petitioner is a student of B.Sc and was preparing for NEET examination. It appears that on account of her being in relationship with a person namely Shubham, petitioner had come to his house, but in the meantime, room 5 was raided and contraband was recovered from the purse of co- accused Sandeep Sharma. Though there is nothing on record to suggest that bail-petitioner is a drug addict, but even if it is presumed that she is drug addict, appropriate course would be to send her to a rehabilitation centre so that she can be brought back into the mainstream at the earliest. Otherwise also, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail-petitioner in custody for indefinite period, because in that situation, chances of her turning into a hardened criminal cannot be ruled out. Main accused Sandeep Sharma, along with other police officials as named herein above, is already behind bars. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice 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 6 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 judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 11. 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. 12. 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. 7 prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail-petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the bail- petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to her 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. 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; 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. e. She shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 14. 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. 15. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain 8 confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 16. 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 August 05, 2026 (sunil) 9