2026:HHC:5862 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.239 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kumar Sanu ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely, Kumar Sanu, who is behind the bars since 16.10.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 265 of 2025, dated 16.10.2025, under Section 20 & 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Sukhwinder Singh has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:5862 2 2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 16.10.2025, police received information that petitioner herein has come from Bihar to Baddi for selling Ganja. Allegedly, police apprehended the petitioner at Baddi bus stand in the presence of independent witnesses. Though, no contraband, as detailed hereinabove, was recovered from his possession, but he allegedly disclosed to the police that he has sold 10.330 Kg. Ganja to co- accused Rahul Gupta. Police took the bail petitioner to the shop of co-accused Rahul Gupta from where 10.330 Kg of Ganja was recovered. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner as well as co-accused Rahul Gupta. Since, challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He states that contraband involved in the case at hand was never recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather same was recovered from the shop of co-accused Rahul Gupta and as such, petitioner otherwise deserves to be enlarged on bail. He states that confessional statement of co- accused Rahul Gupta with regard to alleged sale made by the 2026:HHC:5862 3 petitioner may not be permissible. He states that otherwise also, petitioner being first offender deserve leniency and as such, this Court may proceed to enlarge him on bail during trial, especially when he has already suffered for approximately five months. 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states 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 deserve any leniency. He states that it was the petitioner, who himself disclosed factum of having sold 10.330 Kg Ganja to co- accused Rahul Gupta. He states that though recovery in the case at hand was effected from the conscious possession of co-accused Rahul Gupta, but since petitioner himself admitted factum of his having sold Ganja to co-accused Rahul Gupta, no illegality can be said to have been committed by registering the case against him under Section 20 & 29 of the Act. He states that besides above, financial transaction to the tune of Rs. 1, 08,000/-, which was paid by co-accused Rahul Gupta to petitioner also stands proved. He states that though no case is pending against the petitioner, but in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it may be premature to conclude that in the event of his being released on bail, he may not flee from justice. 2026:HHC:5862 4 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that 10.330 Kg of Ganja, which is in intermediate quantity, was not recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Rahul Gupta, who allegedly had transferred sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner. Though, prosecution attempted to carve out a case that bail petitioner himself disclosed that he has sold 10.330 kg of ganja to co-accused Rahul Gupta, from whose shop same was recovered at the instance of the bail petitioner, but such fact, if any, is yet to be proved on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since no contraband has been recovered from the bail petitioner, case under Section 29 of the Act is registered against him. 6. Whether the contraband allegedly recovered from co- accused Rahul Gupta was sold by the petitioner and such fact, if any, was disclosed by the petitioner, is a question to be decided by the Court below in totality of facts, but having taken note of the fact that contraband recovered from the conscious possession of co- accused Rahul Gupta, coupled with the fact that rigorous of Section 37 are not attracted in the case at hand on account of recovery of intermediate quantity, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during 2026:HHC:5862 5 trial, especially when he has already suffered for approximately five months. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record and as such, his incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of Fundamental Right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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. 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 2026:HHC:5862 6 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. 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 2026:HHC:5862 7 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, 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. 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 2026:HHC:5862 8 remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. The 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. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 05, 2026 (shankar)