IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1373 of 2026 Date of Decision: 4.8.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Vayom Khakta ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajay Kumar and Mr. Jeet Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Vayom Khakta, who is behind the bars since 03.01.2026, 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.3 of 2026, dated 03.01.2026, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2 2. Pursuant to order dated 24.07.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Sukhdev Raj, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 03.01.2026 at 01:30 PM, police, after having received secret information that persons travelling in car bearing No. HP-09C-8011 (Alto) are carrying contraband i.e., chitta, intercepted the aforesaid car for checking. Since occupants of car became perplexed, police after having associated independent witnesses, conducted search of the vehicle as well as occupants and allegedly recovered, 31.46 grams of chitta, kept below the foot mat of the driving seat. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of intermediate quantity of contraband, police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR as detailed herein above. Since then, bail petitioner, who was one of the occupants of car along with co-accused Gurvinder, is behind bars, whereas other co-accused, Karamjeet Singh, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.07.2026 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Though petitioner had also applied for bail in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, but his prayer was rejected on 3 the ground that in past, one case under NDPS Act stands registered against him. 4. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner coupled with the fact that co-accused, Karamjeet Singh, against whom, eight criminal cases stand registered, already stands enlarged on bail, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. While fairly acknowledging factum of filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Panwar, states that evidence adduced on record clearly reveals that 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 such activities. He states that in past, one case already stands registered against petitioner. He fairly acknowledges factum with regard to grant of bail granted to other co- accused, Karamjeet Singh, against whom admittedly, eight criminal cases stand registered. 4 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses. It is not in dispute that bail petitioner was one of the occupants of the car from where contraband was recovered. However, having taken note of the fact that one of the co-accused, Karamjeet Singh, who was also one of the occupants of the car in question, already stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.07.2026 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, coupled with the fact that petitioner is behind bars for more than seven months, this Court is persuaded to consider prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of regular bail. 7. Moreover, this Court finds that provisions of Section 37 of Act are not attracted in the case at hand on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. Though it is vehemently argued by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner is a drug peddler, but in that regard, no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced on record. No doubt, in past, one case under the NDPS Act stands registered against 5 petitioner, but record reveals that in that case, small quantity of contraband was recovered from petitioner. It appears that bail petitioner has become drug addict and as such, is required to be provided immediate medical assistance, so that he is brought back to the mainstream at an earliest. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period, rather in that situation, he may turn out to be a hardened criminal. 8. 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, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Since guilt of petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence, continuous incarceration of the petitioner would amount to pre-trial punishment. Apprehension expressed by 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 him to stringent conditions. 9. 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 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 10. 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. 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. 7 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. 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 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 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. 8 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. The bail 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. August 4, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (manjit) Judge