( 2026:HHC:43849 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1839 of 2026 Reserved on: 06.10.2026 Decided on: 08.10.2026 Uploaded on: 08.10.2026 Tushar Verma ...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. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Tajender No.219, Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, HP. 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. 32 of 2026, dated 09.05.2026, registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The facts, as they emerge from the status report, are that on 08.05.2026, a police party headed by HC Piyush Raj was on patrolling duty. At about 4:15 AM on 09.05.2026, when the police party was near Barubag, they noticed two pickup trucks parked by the side of the road. Suspicion having arisen, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) stopped at the site. 3. Three persons were found sitting in one of the pickup bearing registration No. HP-06B-3402. On seeing the police party, the persons sitting in the pickup got nervous. Since the place was deserted, no independent witness could be associated. Constables Jaswant and Constable Jagmohan who were a part of the police patrol were associated as witnesses. In their presence, the three persons sitting in the pickup disclosed their names as Rohit Chauhan, Tushar Verma (the present petitioner) and Praveen Kumar. 4. After following the codal formalities, the Investigating Officer checked the vehicle, bearing registration 3 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) number HP-06B-3402. During the course of the search, near the footmat of the rear seat of the pickup, a disposable syringe was recovered and beneath the footmat, a transparent polythene packet was found. 5. On opening the polythene packet, some grey- coloured granular substance was found. On the basis of experience and disclosure by the accuseds, it was found to be chitta (heroin). On weighment, the contraband was found to be 9.14 grams. All the three accuseds were arrested at the spot and the petitioner/accused is presently in judicial custody. 6. The status report filed by the prosecution also shows that one case under the NDPS Act already stands registered against the petitioner/accused at Police Station Rampur, vide FIR No. 19/2025, dated 11.02.2025, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the said case, 6.14 grams of chitta (heroin) had been recovered from the co- accused Sahil and the present petitioner had been implicated as an accused under Section 29 of the Act. 4 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records meticulously. 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, one case stands registered against the petitioner under the Act but it is in respect of "intermediate" quantity only. The present petitioner had been implicated only as an accused under Section 29 of the Act in the earlier case. 9. Further, per the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the investigation it has surfaced that accused Rohit Chauhan had only gone to Chandigarh and procured the contraband. All of them were addicted to drugs, and even at the time of arrest, they had been consuming heroin with the help of a syringe. The accused being addicts had kept the same for self consumption. Seeing to the quantity of contraband recovered, the petitioner was, however, entitled to the discretion of bail. 5 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) 10. Per contra Mr. Prashant Sen, the 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 petitioner may again indulge in same and similar activities in the future too. The discretion of bail, thus, cannot be exercised in his favour. 11. The perusal of the status report does show that the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is indeed “intermediate”, being 9.14 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. 12. The earlier case registered against the petitioner under the Act apparently was also only in respect of "intermediate" quantity only. He had been implicated in the said case only under Section 29 of the Act. Per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contraband had been only kept by him for self consumption. All the accuseds were hooked to the drugs and were not peddlers. 6 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) 13. 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 & Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 decided on 03.07.2024). 14. “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 categorically held in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2018) 3 SCC 22 : AIR 2018 SC 980]. 7 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) 15. 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 only "intermediate" in quantity and the trial is likely to take time. Since the earlier cases also pertain to "intermediate" quantity and petitioner himself seems to be 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 the earlier occasion and that too under Section 29 of the Act rules out his being a peddler. 16. 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 8 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) be at liberty to take steps for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner or sent him rehabilitation, if so required. 17. 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 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." 9 ( 2026:HHC:43849 ) 18. 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. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Sub Jail Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 08th October, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez) SHAMSH TABREZ Digitally signed by SHAMSH TABREZ Date: 2026.10.08 14:32:55 +0530