( 2026:HHC:41034 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1599 of 2026 Reserved on 23rd September, 2026 Decided on 24th September, 2026 _____________________________________________________ Shahrukh Khan …Petitioner Versus State of HP …..Respondent _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent/State : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suyraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking post-arrest bail in Case FIR No. 61 of 2026, dated 18.03.2026 registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, under Sections 21, 61 & 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The facts which emerge from the status report, -2- ( 2026:HHC:41034 ) so filed by the State is that on 18.03.2026, a police party headed by HC Dharamdas was on patrolling and during the course of patrolling, a secret information has been received by him that the petitioner-accused was dealing in narcotics at Paonta Sahib. He was present near an under construction shop behind the Vidya Peeth Senior Secondary School, Kedarpur. He was wearing a Yellow Color T-shirt and a blue lower alongwith black slippers. He was carrying a pink carry bag. In case he is apprehended, a huge cache of drugs can be made. 3. Acting swiftly, the Investigating Officer, HC Dharamdas recorded the reasons belief under Section 42 of the Act and sent the same through Constable Parshant Tomar to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan. The rest of the police party had proceeded to the spot. The petitioner was found standing there. With the help of the Police officials, he was apprehended at the spot itself. He had sent Constable Vishal Negi to look for some independent witnesses, but to no avail. Eventually, he had associated constables Om Prakash, and Constable Vishal Negi as independent witnesses. In their presence, the Investigating Officer had inquired the name of the accused. He had disclosed his name as Shahrukh, S/o Gulzar Ali. -3- ( 2026:HHC:41034 ) 4. After following the codal formalities, the Investingating Officer had searched the carry bag carried by the petitioner. During the course of search, he had recovered a transparent plastic pouch/zipper among other things in the bag. On opening the same, brown granular substance was found. With the help of the detection kit, it was found to be heroin (Chitta). On weighing, the contraband was found to be 6.66 grams. 5. The petitioner came to be arrested at the spot. He is presently in judicial custody. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records meticulously. 7. It was urged with vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioner that “intermediate” quantity of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner, and as such, the rigors of Section 37 would not apply with the same force. No doubt, two other cases stand registered against the petitioner under the Act, but in the other two cases too, the quantity recovered from the petitioner was around 7 grams only. Seeing to the quantity of contraband recovered, the petitioner was entitled to the discretion of bail. -4- ( 2026:HHC:41034 ) 8. Per contra Sh. Rajpal Thakur, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State has vociferously urged that keeping in view the past antecedents of the petitioner, it seems that his modus operandi is to carry small quantity of contraband. There are chances that the petitioner may again indulge in same and similar activities in the future too. The discretion of bail, thus, cannot be exercised in his favor. 9. The perusal of the report does show that the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is indeed “less than commercial”, being 6.6 grams of heroin (Chitta) and as such, the rigors of Section 37 will not stricto sensu apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case with the same vigour. 10. The registration of the earlier cases under the Act is however suggestive of the fact that the petitioner is an habitual offender. However, in both cases, the contraband recovered was “intermediate” too. 11. It further emerges on record that no independent witnesses worth the name have been associated in the present case. The recovery has allegedly been made in the presence of police officials alone. There are thus no chances of the petitioner interfering with the prosecution evidence in any manner. -5- ( 2026:HHC:41034 ) 12. It further transpires that the trial has commenced, and about 10 witnesses already stand examined. The examination of the remaining witnesses is likely to take time. Pre-trial incarceration is otherwise generally loathed by the Courts, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions including Union of India vs. K.N. Nazeeb 2021 (3) SCC 713. 13. Though a repeat offender under normal circumstances this Court would not have exercised discretion in his favour but seeing to the peculiar circumstances, discussed above and keeping in view the fact that the quantity of contraband recovered from the accused in the present case is less than commercial and the trial is likely to take time it would in the interest of justice and fairplay that the discretion of bail is exercised in his favour, but subject to strict terms. 14. As a sequel, while allowing the present petition, it is directed that in case the petitioner is henceforth found to be indulging in any similar activity and an FIR is registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, not only the present bail granted shall stand forfeited but, the State would be at liberty to take steps for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner. 15. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, the bail -6- ( 2026:HHC:41034 ) petition is thus allowed. As a sequel, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureities of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court subject to the following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor intimidate, threaten or coerce the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case; ii) That the petitioner shall put in appearance before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when directed; iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without the express permission of the Court, he shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency; iv) If the bail petitioner is found to be indulging in similar cases in the future and an FIR is registered against him under the NDPS Act, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled forthwith and the State shall also be at liberty to take steps for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner. 16. The observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined only for the purposes of the -7- ( 2026:HHC:41034 ) disposal of the present petition. 17. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) 24th September, 2026 Judge (Ritu) RITU RANI Digitally signed by RITU RANI Date: 2026.09.24 15:30:18 +0545