2026:HHC:35055 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1488 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.08.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Maninder Kaur .....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. Prikshit Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. SI Chetan Chauhan, SHO, Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Maninder Kaur, who is behind bars since 30.10.2025, has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.71 of 2025, dated 30.10.2025, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and SI Chetan Chauhan, SHO, Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:35055 -2- Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 30.10.2025, Police, after having received secret information that person namely Neelam, resident of Old Jubbal, Tehsil Jubbal, indulges in illegal trade of narcotics along with her friend Maninder Kaur, petitioner herein, raided the house of afore person in the presence of independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 12.42 grams of contraband, i.e., chitta/heroin. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, Police, after completing codal formalities, lodged FIR and since then bail petitioner is behind bars. 4. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail 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 petitioner is a habitual offender. To substantiate his aforesaid 2026:HHC:35055 -3- plea, Mr. Kahol invited attention of this Court to the status report, wherein it has been recorded that in past, one case under the NDPS Act already stands registered at Police Station Jubbal, wherein 14.9 grams of chitta was recovered from the petitioner. He states that petitioner, who is from the State of Haryana, is a very clever person, and in the event of her being enlarged on bail, she may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities and as such, her prayer for grant of bail may be rejected outrightly. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the room, where petitioner was also present, in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than ten months, coupled with the fact that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, this Court is persuaded to accept the prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of bail. True it is that in past one case under the NDPS Act stands registered against petitioner, but guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner in that case is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 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 2026:HHC:35055 -4- 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. 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. 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 2026:HHC:35055 -5- 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 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, 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 ₹5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of 2026:HHC:35055 -6- 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. 13. 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. 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 19th August, 2026 Rajeev Raturi