2026:HHC:19376 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 803 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.5.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar ...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. R.K. Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ASI Ganesh Lal, P.S. Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, present with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner, namely Pawan Kumar, who is behind the bars since 18.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 212 of 2025, dated 18.11.2025, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. In terms of order dated 11.5.2026, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Ganesh Lal, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:19376 3. Close scrutiny of record reveals that on 18.11.2025 at about 5:30pm, police stopped a car bearing registration No. HP12E5492 (white swift) for checking. Since occupants of the car got perplexed after having seen the police, police deemed it necessary to cause their personal search as well as of the vehicle and allegedly, recovered one transparent polythene bag from lid of the oil tank containing 9.70 grams of chitta/heroin. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband by the occupants of the car, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, registered afore FIR, as detailed herein above, against the accused, who at the relevant time, were travelling in the car. Accused namely Pawan Kumar, S/o Sh. Tilak Ram and Dharmender Kumar, s/o Sh. Raj Pal, already stand enlarged on bail pursuant to order passed by the learned trial Court, whereas present bail petitioner is still behind the bars. Though bail petitioner had also applied for the bail in the learned trial Court, but such prayer of him, was rejected for the reason that two cases under the Act already stood registered against him. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, 3 2026:HHC:19376 learned Deputy Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Chauhan, further states that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and a repeated offender coupled with the fact that he is accused of commission of heinous crime having adverse impact on the society, it may not be in the interest of justice, to enlarge him on bail because in the event, he may not only flee from justice but may indulge in these activities again 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the bail petitioner that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband i.e. chitta, came to be recovered from the car being driven by the petitioner in the presence of the independent witnesses, however having taken note of the fact that quantity of contraband is intermediate coupled with the fact that two co-accused already stand enlarged on bail, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail. 6. True it is that in past, two cases under the Act have been registered against the petitioner, but in one of the FIR, which was lodged in the year 2018, petitioner stands acquitted, 4 2026:HHC:19376 whereas in another FIR, guilt, if any, of him is yet to be ascertained in accordance with law. 7. Careful perusal of status report reveals that bail petitioner has become a drug addict and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period. If it is so, he is required to be provided medical assistance at the first instance so that he is brought back to the mainstream at the earliest. In case, bail petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, there is every chance of his becoming hardened criminal. Though bail petitioner is accused of heinous crime having adverse impact on the society, but his guilt is yet to be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when he has remained behind the bars for approximately five months. 8. 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, 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 Deputy Advocate General 5 2026:HHC:19376 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. 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. 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. 11. 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 6 2026:HHC:19376 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. 12. 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. 13. 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, present 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.1,00,000/- 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; 7 2026:HHC:19376 (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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 May 22, 2025 Manjit