( 2026:HHC:42880 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1772 of 2026 Reserved on: 01.10.2026 Decided on: 05.10.2026 Uploaded on: 05.10.2026 Prikshit Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with M/s. Anubhav Chopra, Ravi Tanta & Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kuthelria, Additional Advocate General, assisted by HC Jaivanti, No.81, Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 157 of 2026, dated 20.07.2026, registered at Police Station Sadar 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) Solan, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The facts which emerge from the status report so filed by the State are that on 20.07.2026, Inspector Navneet Saini, along with a police party, was on patrolling. At about 05:30 PM when the police petrol was near Radha Swami Rain Shelter, Solan, a secret information had been received that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-09C-6916 (Alto-800), silver in colour, was parked on the four-lane near Shamlech Flyover at Kumarhatti, Solan, and that one Prajwwal Janartha and Parikshit Chauhan (petitioner) the occupants of the car were dealing in narcotics. If intercepted, a huge quantity of contraband may be recovered. 3. Acting swiftly, the Investigating Officer, Inspector Navneet Saini, recorded the reasons of belief under Section 42(2) of the Act and sent the same through Constable Rohit Kumar to the Supervisory Officer of Police Station Solan. On reaching the spot, the Investigating Officer found the car bearing registration No. HP09C-6916 parked there, facing 3 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) towards Solan. Two persons were found seated inside the car. The Investigating Officer deputed Constable Rohit Kumar to look for independent witnesses. After some time, he reached the spot along with one Rahul Kumar, son of Ram Pal, resident of Village Patta More, Post Office Kumarhatti, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., who was associated as an independent witness by the Investigating Officer. 4. In the presence of the independent witness, the Investigating Officer asked the persons sitting in the car to disclose their names. The person sitting in the driver’s seat had disclosed his name as Prajwwal Janartha, while the person sitting on the co-driver’s seat disclosed his name as Parikshit Chauhan (petitioner). The Investigating Officer offered the search of the police party to the occupants of the vehicle. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer searched the vehicle. During the course of search, the Investigating Officer recovered one transparent plastic pouch from the torn co-driver’s seat. Inside the transparent polythene pouch, a light yellowish substance was found, which, on being checked 4 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) with the help of the drug detection kit, was found to be heroin (chitta). On weighing, the same was found to be 8.32 grams. 5. After following the codal formalities, the contraband so recovered was taken into possession along with the car and its keys. The petitioner also came to be arrested at the spot. He is presently in judicial custody. 6. The status report filed by the prosecution also shows that two cases under the NDPS Act already stand registered against the petitioner/accused, one being FIR No. 169 of 2019, dated 08.10.2019, registered under Section 20 of the Act, in which 11 grams of charas had been allegedly recovered from the petitioner, while the other stands registered vide FIR No. 232/2020, dated 25.12.2020, under Section 21 of the Act, wherein 3.39 grams of heroin (chitta) is alleged to have been recovered from him. Both the cases are stated to be pending adjudication. The charge-sheet in the present case also stands filed on 10.09.2026. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records meticulously. 5 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) 8. 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 both are for small quantities. The petitioner being an addict he had kept the same for self consumption. Seeing to the quantity of contraband recovered, the petitioner was entitled to the discretion of bail. 9. Per contra Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, 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 favour. 10. The perusal of the status report does show that the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is indeed “intermediate”, being 8.32 grams of heroin (chitta) and as 6 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) such, the rigors of Section 37 will not stricto sensu apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case with the same vigour. 11. The registration of the earlier case registered against the petitioner under the Act apparently are only in respect to "small" quantity. Per the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was only kept by him for self consumption. He is hooked to the drugs and no a peddler. 12. It further transpires form record that the charge- sheet has already been filed on 10.09.2026. The culmination of the trial is likely to take sufficient 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 7 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) of contraband recovered from the accused in the present case is "intermediate" and the trial is likely to take time. Since the earlier cases pertain to "small" quantity and apparently the petitioner was himself addicted to the drugs, it would be in the interest of justice and fairplay that the discretion of bail is exercised in his favour, but subject to strict terms. He may be given a chance to reform himself. The quantity of drugs recovered from him on all the three occasions rule out his being a peddler. 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 him 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 or sent him rehabilitation, if so required. 15. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, the bail 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 sureties of the like 8 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) 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 or send him for rehabilitation, if so required." 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 disposal of the present petition. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 9 ( 2026:HHC:42880 ) 18. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 05th October, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez) SHAMSH TABREZ Digitally signed by SHAMSH TABREZ Date: 2026.10.05 13:27:23 +0530