2026:HHC:5268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 148 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.3.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Girish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Girish Kumar, who is behind the bars since 14.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.248 of 2025, dated 14.11.2025, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and SI Ashok Kumar has come present with record. Perusal of status report reveals that on 14.11.2025 at 4:38pm, police stopped a HRTC bus bearing registration 2026:HHC:5268 2 No.HP-82-2924 for checking and allegedly, recovered 845 grams of charas from rucksack bag of passenger sitting on seat No.32 i.e. bail petitioner. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR and arrested the bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency. He states that petitioner is a drug peddler because in past also, one case under the Act already stands registered against him. He states that since petitioner has committed heinous crime having adverse impact on society, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on regular bail because in that event, he may indulge in these activities again. 2026:HHC:5268 3 4. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated because recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, has been effected in the presence of independent witnesses, however, having taken note of the fact that challan stands filed in the competent court of law and considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial coupled with the fact that rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the case at hand on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, this Court is persuaded to consider prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail. True it is that in past, one case under the Act stands registered against the petitioner, but therein, recovery has not been effected from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather he has been booked under Section 29 of the Act. Mere pendency of criminal case, wherein guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution cannot be a ground for this court to conclude that petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail he may again indulge in these activities. 5. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence collected on record, but having taken note of the 2026:HHC:5268 4 aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for an indefinite period during trial, conclusion whereof is likely to take considerable time. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is legal right of the accused and one cannot be made to suffer indefinitely for delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period during trial. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569). 6. One is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, it may not be in the interest of justice to let 2026:HHC:5268 5 the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or may indulge in these activities again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by 2026:HHC:5268 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 10. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 2026:HHC:5268 7 11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 2026:HHC:5268 8 13. 2026:HHC:5268 8 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 14. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. March 2, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ), (manjit) Judge