IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.216 of 2026 with Cr.MP(M) No.377 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Cr. MP (M) No.216 of 2026 Nikhil Thakur ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 2. Cr. MP (M) No.377 of 2026 Gaurav Verma ...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. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.216 of 2026 and Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.377 of 2026. For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since both the petitions arise from the same FIR, same were taken up together and are being disposed of vide this common order. 2. Bail petitioners namely, Nikhil Thakur and Gaurav Verma, who are behind the bars since 27.01.2026, have 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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.278 of 2025, dated 26.12.2025, under Sections 20, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, respondent. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and HC Jai Singh has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 4. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 26.12.2025, police party present near Pungh Four-Lane, stopped car bearing registration No.DL-3C-DD 8275 for checking. Since occupants of the car got perplexed after having seen the police, police deemed it necessary to cause search of the vehicle as well as its occupants. Allegedly, after having associated independent witnesses, police recovered one bag from afore car containing 685 grams of charas. Since, occupants of the car, namely Gaurav Verma and Nikhil Thakur i.e. present bail petitioners were unable to render plausible explanation qua intermediate quantity of contraband recovered from their car, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR, as detailed hereinabove. During investigation, bail petitioners disclosed to the police that co-accused, Krish Thakur, Sumit and 3 Saksham, traveling in car bearing registration No. HR-95B-1839 had collected money for purchase of aforesaid contraband. On the basis of aforesaid statements made by bail petitioners namely, Gaurav and Nikhil, police conducted the investigation and found that sum of Rs 30,000/- was withdrawn by co-accused Krish Thakur from his ATM and in this background, he also came to be named in the FIR, however he stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 02.03.2026 passed in Cr.MP (M) No.231 of 2026. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency. Learned Additional Advocate General states that though in the case at hand, quantity of contraband is intermediate, but having taken note of scenario of drug menace in the State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court may not accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of bail, who otherwise in the event of their being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these 4 activities. He states that otherwise also, petitioners cannot claim parity with co-accused Krish Thakur, who has been booked under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, whereas present bail petitioners have been booked under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for their having possessed intermediate quantity of contraband. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that contraband, which is of intermediate quantity was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners and as such, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention raised at the behest of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated. The recovery has been effected in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioners, besides their being students, are first offenders, coupled with the fact that quantity of contraband recovered from them is intermediate, this Court is perused to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of bail. Though, it came to be vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent-State that bail petitioners are drug peddlers, but status report nowhere suggests the same, rather same suggests that bail petitioners are consumers and in past, no case under NDPS Act stands registered against them. Since rigours of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the present case, coupled with the fact that guilt, if any, 5 of petitioners is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this Court sees no reason to let bail petitioners incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial. 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, their 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 petitioners’ being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioners to stringent conditions as have been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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. 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 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, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) They shall make themselves 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) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) They 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) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, 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 8 remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. 15. The petitioners are 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 19,2026 (shankar)