IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.76/2026. Date of Decision: 27th February, 2026. Surinder Pal .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Gobind Korla, Addl. Advocate General. ASI, Bhoginder Kumar, I.O. District Kangra HP, is present in person. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, arising out of FIR No.64/2024 dated 12.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the status report. 3. The brief facts are that on 12.03.2025, the Police party while on patrolling, at about 2:30 in the night found a vehicle (Alto car) bearing number HP-76-5951 parked on the roadside of the Nagrota road towards Mattaur in front of the Toyota Agency. The interior lights of the vehicle were found to be on and four persons were sitting inside the vehicle. On seeing the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Police vehicle, the persons sitting in the vehicle got nervous and the driver tried to start the vehicle. The Police party quickly took control of the vehicle. On questioning, it was found that the vehicle was owned by its driver Sukh Ram. The persons sitting on the front seat adjacent to the driver was named Bishan Dass. The other two persons sitting in the rear seats were named Sahil Kumar and the Subhkaran. 4. On search of the vehicle, four packets wrapped in a plastic pack were found on the floor under the seat adjacent to the seat of the driver. The contraband recovered was found to be Hashish. The weight of the contraband was found to be 1 Kg. 943.5 grams. Admittedly, the quantity of the contraband recovered is a commercial quantity. 5. As per the case of the prosecution, the present bail petitioner Surinder Pal @ Sahil had travelled in vehicle bearing No. H.P. 54A-9208 owned by Shubhkaran. The said car was parked on the other side of the road. During investigation, the bail petitioner was sought to be linked to Sukh Ram, owner of Alto car bearing number -HP-76-5951, from where the contraband was recovered. The bail petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2025 as he is stated to have absconded from the place of occurrence and is presently lodged in judicial custody 6. Challan, in the case at hand, was filed in the month of November, 2024. Charges stand framed and now the matter is being listed for prosecution evidence. The total witnesses, in the 3 case at hand, are 22. Six witnesses stand examined. The matter is now posted for recording of evidence of two more witnesses on 08.06.2026 before the trial Court. The trial is not likely to complete in near future. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment dated 18.10.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal Crl. Nos. 9737 of 2024 titled as Johnson vs. State of Rep by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Police, Nib-Cid and to judgment passed in Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 16671/2024, decided on 10.01.2025 titled as Shambhulal Gurjar vs. State of Rajasthan. 8. In both the aforesaid cases, the quantity of contraband involved was commercial. The High Court had rejected the bail in both the cases on account of commercial quantity being involved in the cases. In the former case, the accused had been in custody since more three years, whereas in the latter, he had undergone one year and eight months of custody. In both the cases taking into account the period spent, the bail petitioner(s) had been enlarged on bail. 9. Other than the aforesaid, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment reported as 2023 (18) 166 titled as Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), wherein it has been held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 4 of the ND&PS Act given the imperative of Section 436A of the Erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure. In the status report, no flight risk of the bail petitioner has been alleged. 10. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. Such a person is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. 11. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Punishment begins after conviction. 12. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua the social circumstances of the petitioner, whereby it can be made out that the petitioner is likely to betray the confidence that the Court may place in him to turn out to take justice at the hands of the Court. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be a resident of Village & PO Chalwara, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. In order to ensure his presence at trial stringent conditions can be imposed while granting bail. 13. The respondent/State has not expressed any apprehension regarding him fleeing from the justice and 5 adversely affecting the trial. In any case, the petitioner can be put to terms for the purposes of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial. 14. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.64/2024 dated 12.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for an offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lac] with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this bail order is subject to the following conditions:-. (i) Petitioner shall 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; (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court; (iv) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer; (v) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence 6 during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; & (vi) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. 16. Needless to say that the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioner. 17. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 18. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 19. In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra. The Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court. 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 7 21. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and, in case, said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th February, 2026 (Tarun Singh) Digitally signed by TARUN SINGH DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= d9a5ff72fb0acba2bc2e5e2a887cd8990f1824b024 012b79267e68676b38171a, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= 2c3ab1f19a0e20eacba86d89a55d133fa673627a3 d655d03d667760fbae50f3a, CN=TARUN SINGH Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026.02.27 17:55:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 TARUN SINGH