2026:HHC:5292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 145 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.3.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Sukhdev Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Narcotics Control Bureau …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Sukhdev Singh, who is behind the bars since 5.11.2022, 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 crime case No. 75 of 2022, dated 5.11.2022, under Sections 8, 20, 29 & 60 of the NDPS Act, registered at NCB Sub Zone Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent-NCB has filed the status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 5.11.2022 at 6:20AM, NCB team intercepted a car bearing registration No. PB13AR7929 at Bheulipul Mandi and allegedly, recovered 8.742kgs of charas in the presence of independent witnesses. Since no 2026:HHC:5292 2 plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband by the occupants of the car, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR and arrested the occupants including the present bail petitioner, who was allegedly driving the car. All the occupants save and except present bail petitioner have been enlarged on bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial. Bail petitioner as well as co-accused Maja Ram approached this Court for grant of regular bail, but such prayer of them was rejected. Maja Ram approached Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16863 of 2025 and was enlarged on bail on 16.1.2026. One of the occupants of the car Ms. Harneet Kaur, who was minor, was released immediately after lodging of FIR by the Juvenile Court. Since co-accused Maja Ram has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court, present bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of similar relief on the basis of parity. 3. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for NCB, fairly admitted factum with regard to grant of regular bail to co- accused Maja Ram vide order dated 16.1.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. He further submitted that in view of the ground raised in the instant proceedings, 2026:HHC:5292 3 coupled with the fact that co-accused has been already enlarged on bail on the ground of delay, prayer made by the petitioner also deserves to be considered and allowed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner. Perusal of status report reveals that five witnesses out of total 11 witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court. Though learned trial Court has fixed the matter for recording the statement of remaining witnesses on 30/31.3.2026, but since Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of delay in conclusion of trial has already enlarged co- accused Maja Ram on bail, this Court is also persuaded to consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 5. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maja Ram (supra), “1. Against an order rejecting the regular bail by the High Court and to seek bail, the present special leave petition has been filed. The petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 05.11.2022 in connection with FIR No. 75/2022 dated 05.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered with Police Station NCB Sub-Zone Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2026:HHC:5292 4 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the period of incarceration and the fact that out of 14, only six witnesses have been examined and eight are yet to be examined, the trial may take some time to conclude. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. 3. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court. 4. Petitioner to abide all the conditions as imposed and shall regularly attend the trial until exempted by the Court. Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as permissible and the trial Court is at liberty to do the needful. 5. Accordingly and in view of the foregoing, the special leave petition stands disposed of. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 6. 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 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. 7. It is well settled that 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 in afore cases is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, it may not be in 2026:HHC:5292 5 the interest of justice to let 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, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. 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. 9. 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:5292 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 10. 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. 11. 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:5292 7 12. 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. 13. 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:5292 8 14. 2026:HHC:5292 8 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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