2026:HHC:99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) Nos. 2776 and 2777 of 2025. Reserved on: 16.12.2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 1. Cr. MP(M) No. 2776 of 2025 Dumnu ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr. MP(M) No. 2777 of 2025 Naganu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Ashok Tyagi & Divya Rajta, Advocates, in both the petitions. For the Respondent(s) : Mr Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:99 Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Both the petitions have been filed for seeking regular bail in the same FIR; hence, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 261 of 2025, dated 18.10.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Police Station Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 3. It has been asserted that a false F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners to harass them and lower their image in the society. As per the prosecution, the police had laid a nakka at Industrial Area Phase-II, Old Road near Village Nela on 18.10.2025 at about 4:20 p.m. They intercepted two persons at 4:40 p.m. who were walking on foot towards the Sauli Khad. One person was carrying a backpack on his left shoulder. He panicked after seeing the police and proceeded towards the Industrial area, Phase-II. The police apprehended them and enquired about the contents of the bag. They could not give any satisfactory answer. The person carrying a backpack identified himself as Naganu 3 2026:HHC:99 Ram, and the other person identified himself as Dumnu Ram. The police searched them in the presence of Rajinder Mohan and Constable Vinod Kumar, and recovered a carry bag containing 804 grams of charas. The quantity of 804 grams of charas is an intermediate 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 learned Trial Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. The petitioners would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed. 4. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a nakka on the road leading from Sauli Khad to Majhwar on 18.10.2025 at about 4:20 p.m. Two people came towards Sauli Khad at 4:40 p.m. One person was carrying a backpack. They got frightened after seeing the police and started going back towards Industrial Area Phase- II. The police became suspicious and apprehended them. The police associated Rajinder Mohan, Councillor of Ward No.4, Municipal Committee, Mandi, H.P. The person carrying the backpack revealed his name as Naganu Ram, and another person 4 2026:HHC:99 revealed his name as Dumnu Ram. The police checked the backpack and recovered 804 grams of charas. The police arrested the petitioners. The charas was sent to FSL, and it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas after the analysis. No other F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner, Dumnu Ram, and one F.I.R. No. 128 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 was registered against petitioner Naganu Ram for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, but he was acquitted on 29.01.2024. Hence, the status report. 5. I have heard M/s Ashok Kumar Tyagi and Divya Rajta, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 6. Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. As per the case of the prosecution, the police had recovered 804 grams of charas, which is an intermediate quantity. No F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner, Dumnu Ram and petitioner Naganu Ram was also 5 2026:HHC:99 acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. F.I.R. No. 128 of 2016 The petitioners would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 7. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the quantity of charas found in possession of the petitioners was huge that could not have meant for self-consumption. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. The narcotics adversely affect society, and no leniency should be shown in such cases. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. 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 Narasimhuluv.High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while 6 2026:HHC:99 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 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 7 2026:HHC:99 circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the 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 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 8 2026:HHC:99 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) “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; 9 2026:HHC:99 (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, 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 so as 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) 10 2026:HHC:99 10. 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 must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The status report shows that the police intercepted the petitioners and recovered a bag containing 804 grams of charas from the petitioner, Naganu Ram. The petitioners were walking together, and both of them ran away after seeing the police. This conduct of the petitioners, prima facie, shows their involvement in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) B of the NDPS Act. 11 2026:HHC:99 13 As per the prosecution, the quantity of charas recovered from the bag was 804 grams of charas, which is intermediate; hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner, Naganu Ram, has criminal antecedents, and an F.I.R. was registered against him. This submission cannot be accepted. The status report itself mentions that petitioner Naganu Ram was acquitted in the F.I.R. registered against him. Therefore, the petitioner Naganu Ram does not have any pending matters, and the plea that he has criminal antecedents cannot be accepted. The petitioners are the first offenders, and they should get a chance to reform themselves; their continued incarceration would prevent their chances of reformation because they could come in contact with hardened criminals. 15. It was submitted that 804 grams of charas could not have been made for self-consumption, and the petitioners arethe drug peddlers. The narcotics adversely affect society, and their possession should not be lightly viewed. This submission will not help the petitioners. In the present case, no previous F.I.R. was 12 2026:HHC:99 registered against the petitioners for their involvement in the selling of charas to any person. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner would not have been arrested previously if they were selling charas to someone; therefore, the plea that the petitioners are the drug peddlers cannot be accepted at this stage. 16. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 17. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioners shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioners will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing their addresses of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile number and social media contacts to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through 13 2026:HHC:99 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. 18. 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. 19. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and the learned Trial Court through FASTER. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 01st January, 2026 (ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5 c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f 53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-01-02 11:42:55 RAVINDER KUMAR