( 2026:HHC:43756 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1782 of 2026 Reserved on 06th October, 2026 Decided on 7th October, 2026 _____________________________________________________ Sunil …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …..Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner :Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate. For the respondents/State :Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by ASI Gian Singh, PS Parwanoo, District Solan, HP _____________________________________________________ Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suyraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) seeking post-arrest bail in Case FIR No. 69 of 2026, dated 05.06.2026 registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The facts which emerge from the status report, so filed -2- ( 2026:HHC:43756 ) by the State is that on 05.06.2026, ASI Narender Kumar was heading a police patrol and when the police patrol was near the flyover at Jabli, a secret information had been received that one taxi bearing registration No. HP 01A 7585 was on its way to Solan from Pinjore, and two persons, namely Sunil (the petitioner) and Suresh Kumar were traveling in it towards Shimla. They were dealing in narcotics and were carrying a huge cache of drugs. 3. Acting swiftly, the Investigating Officer, ASI Narender Kumar, recorded the reasons of belief under Section 42(2) of the Act and sent the same to the supervisory officer through Constable Rohit Kumar. The Investigating Officer in the meantime had set up a naka to apprehend the vehicle. At about 6:05 PM, a vehicle bearing registration No. HP 09C 9464 had come from Jabli side. One Sandarbh Chauhan, who was driving the vehicle, had been requested to join the police raiding party as an independent witness along with one Prashant Thakur. Both were associated as witnesses. At about 6:15 PM, the vehicle in question had reached the spot. It was signaled to stop. In the presence of the independent witnesses, the driver of the vehicle had disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar, while the person sitting in the co-driver seat had disclosed his name as Sunil Kumar (the petitioner). During the -3- ( 2026:HHC:43756 ) course of search of the vehicle, one transparent polythene pouch was found near the armrest. On opening the pouch, whitish granular substance was found. With the help of the drug detection kit, it was found to be heroin (Chitta). On weighing, it was found to be 9.72 grams. 4. The petitioner along with the co-accused came to be arrested at the spot. He is presently in judicial custody. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records meticulously. 6. 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 “intermediate” only. Seeing to the quantity of contraband recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the discretion of bail. 7. Per contra Sh. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy 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 -4- ( 2026:HHC:43756 ) petitioner may again indulge in same and similar activities in the future too. The discretion of bail, thus, cannot be exercised in his favour. 8. The perusal of the status report does show that the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is indeed “less than commercial”, being 9.72 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. The recovery is also not solely attributed to the petitioner. 9. The registration of the earlier cases under the Act is, however suggestive of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender. However, in both cases, the contraband recovered was “intermediate” too. 10. It further transpires from the record that the charge- sheet has already been filed. The culmination of the trial is thus 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 & Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 decided on 03.07.2024). -5- ( 2026:HHC:43756 ) 11. “Bail, not jail” is the golden thread which has been running right through the various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court starting from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1980 SC 1632), which has consistently been followed till the decision rendered in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (AIR 2019 SC 4198). The object of granting bail was further elucidated in Sanjay Chandra & Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (AIR 2012 SC 830). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further reiterated that grant of bail was a general rule, as was also categorically held in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2018) 3 SCC 22 : AIR 2018 SC 980] 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, in a catena of decisions, have repeatedly held that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The trial is still at its inception and is likely to take sufficient time. Even otherwise, the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is intermediate. The recovery is also not solely attributed to the petitioner. 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 -6- ( 2026:HHC:43756 ) petitioner/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. 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. 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 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; -7- ( 2026:HHC:43756 ) 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 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, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 18. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) 7th October, 2026 Judge (Ritu) RITU RANI Digitally signed by RITU RANI Date: 2026.10.07 17:41:47 +0545