IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.747 of 2026 Decided on: 21.05.2026 ________________________________________________________ Ashish ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ASI Ashwani Thakur, Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, HP, present in person along with record. ________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner Ashish, who is behind bars since 20.01.2026, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.15 of 2026, dated 20.01.2026, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “ND & PS Act”). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Pursuant to order dated 05.05.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Ashwani Thakur has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 20.01.2026, police stopped a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No.HP-12AS-5515 for checking. Since driver of the car as well as other occupants including the bail-petitioner got perplexed and started making excuses, Police conducted search of the vehicle as well as persons sitting therein and accordingly, after having associated independent witnesses, effected search of the occupants of the car as well as vehicle and allegedly recovered 701 grams of charas from the dashboard of the car. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed all codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and since then, bail-petitioner is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, 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. Mr. Panwar, states that bail-petitioner is a drug peddler 2 and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. While making this Court peruse status report, Mr. Panwar further states that bail- petitioner has a criminal record. He states that though no case under ND & PS Act has been registered against him, but cases under Indian Penal Code have been registered against him. He states that since petitioner is a resident of Haryana and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, it may be difficult for the prosecution to secure his presence during trial. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband, i.e. 701 grams of charas, was recovered from the dashboard of the car, wherein petitioner was also occupant, in presence of independent witnesses. Though Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that petitioner was sitting on the rear seat of the car and he had no knowledge with regard to transportation of contraband, but such fact may not be of very much relevance because to prove his innocence, he is required to lead cogent and convincing evidence. However, having taken note of the fact that rigours of Section 37 are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, coupled with the fact that petitioner is the first time offender insofar as case under the ND & PS Act is concerned, this Court is inclined to consider 3 the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, especially when petitioner has remained behind bars for more than four months. 6. Though Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that petitioner is a drug peddler, but he has been unable to point out any cogent and convincing evidence adduced on record in support of the said allegation. Besides above, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that recovery of contraband has been effected from the dashboard of the car, which at the relevant time was being driven by the co-accused. “Whether petitioner had any knowledge with regard to contraband, if any, kept in the car or he had connived with other co-accused are the questions to be decided by the learned Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution?” 7. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 4 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 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. 5 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 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, bail-petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the bail- 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. e. He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 6 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 remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. 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 order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 21, 2026 (sunil) 7