2026:HHC:43197 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1731 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.09.2026 Date of Decision: 06.10.2026 Sashank Gill …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s J.K.Verma and Mayank Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 137 of 2026, dated 17.06.2026, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). 2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the police intercepted an Innova bearing registration No. HP01 M- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:43197 7721, near a liquor shop on 17.06.2026, at about 07:30 p.m. The petitioner and co-accused were sitting as passengers in the rear seat behind the driver. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a transparent polythene packet containing 9.620 grams of heroin. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The recovery was effected from beneath the foot mat inside a commercial passenger vehicle driven by Ritesh Kumar. The petitioner was merely a fare-paying passenger in a transport vehicle, accessible to multiple occupants. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner's possession is 9.620 grams, which is less than the commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police had set up a Nakka at Ropari on 3 2026:HHC:43197 17.06.2026. An Innova bearing registration number HP01M-7721 came from Bilaspur at about 7:30 pm. The police signalled the driver to stop. The police demanded the documents from the driver, and the persons sitting on the rear seat started talking to each other. The police became suspicious. The driver identified himself as Ritesh Kumar. The persons sitting on the rear seats identified themselves as Sachin and Sashank Gill (present petitioner). The police called the salesman from the liquor vend and asked him to become a witness, but he declined. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 9.620 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. As per the result of analysis, the heroin was found to be a sample of diacetylmorphine (heroin). FIR No. 66 of 2023, dated 12.06.2023, has been registered against the petitioner. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court after the completion of investigation on 31.07.2026, and the matter was listed on 26.09.2026 for consideration of charge. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard M/s J. K. Verma and Mayank Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4 2026:HHC:43197 5. Mr J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was occupying the rear seat in a taxi, and there is no material to connect him to the commission of the crime. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sorabkhan vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 13 SCC 608 and judgments of this Court in Ravi Sharma vs. State of H.P. 2024:HHC: 12720 and Khusvin Bhatia @ Chandu vs State of H.P. 2026:HHC: 37194 in support of his submission. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle from which the recovery was effected, and would be deemed to be in possession. The quantity of heroin recovered by the police cannot be said to be small. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to indulge in the 5 2026:HHC:43197 commission of a similar crime in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in 6 2026:HHC:43197 this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion 7 2026:HHC:43197 in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) 8 2026:HHC:43197 “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, 9 2026:HHC:43197 observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time, while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and 10 2026:HHC:43197 must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report mentions that the police had intercepted a vehicle bearing registration number HP01M-7721 and found 9.620 grams of heroin in it. The vehicle was a commercial vehicle and not a private vehicle. The status report further mentions that Sachin, resident of Rishikesh and Sashank Gill (the present petitioner), resident of Tarna Road, Mandi, District Mandi, were found in it. It was held by this Court in Ravi Sharma (supra) that the mere presence of a person in a commercial vehicle when the recovery was not made from him is not sufficient to connect him to the commission of the crime. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in Sorabkhan (supra) that in a case of a commercial vehicle like an auto-rickshaw, a person cannot be fastened with liability because the co-passenger was found in possession of the contraband. Therefore, the prosecution was required to bring some material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime, especially when the 11 2026:HHC:43197 petitioner and the co-accused are not even residents of the same State. 12. The status report mentions that police interrogated the occupants of the vehicle and they admitted the ownership of the heroin. This admission made by the accused to the police is not sufficient. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588, that a statement made by an accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was observed at page 568: - 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eyes of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1: (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one 12 2026:HHC:43197 under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 13. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon the statement made by the petitioner to the police. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is likely to commit a similar crime in case of his release on bail. This submission will not help the prosecution. The criminal antecedents would have been relevant had the prosecution been able to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. However, the police have failed to collect sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and he cannot be detained in custody simply because he has criminal antecedents. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024:INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused when no prima facie case is made out against him. It was observed: “10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a 13 2026:HHC:43197 Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.” 15. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody because he has criminal antecedents. 16. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 17. It was submitted that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of the crime in case of his release on bail. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to deny bail. 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - 14 2026:HHC:43197 (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present addresses for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/ WhatsApp/ Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 20. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Mandi, H.P. and learned Trial Court by FASTER. 15 2026:HHC:43197 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) 06th October, 2026 Judge (Ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af136320 4ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c5538 03537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-10-06 14:43:27 RAVINDER KUMAR