CRMPM/1924/2026 on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1924 of 2026 Reserved on: 8.10.2026 Date of Decision: 14.10.2026 Ritik ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr

Jitender

Sharma,

Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Duni Chand, IO, CIA Kangra, HP Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 57 of 2026, dated 24.05.2026, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act').

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that Head Constable Sudesh Kumar received secret information on 24.05.2026 at about 7:04 am that Priya Devi was selling heroin from her house. The police reduced the information to writing, joined Narender Bhatt and Sanjeev Kumar, and reached the house of Priya Devi. One person ran away from the house. Priya, Sumit, and Ritik (the present petitioner) were found present in the house. The police recovered 16.06 grams of heroin, foil paper, containers, a digital balance, and envelopes. The police seized them. Subsequently, the police arrested Lakhwinder Singh. He made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of 128.08 grams of heroin. Abhishek Sahota had furnished payment scanners which were used to remit the price of the contraband. Deleted photographs of consignment sites were recovered from the mobile phone of Abhishek Sahota. Many persons were arrested based on financial transactions. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police is less than commercial, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the

Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police had received secret information on 24.05.2026 at about 7:04 AM that Priya was selling heroin from her home. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring the search warrant would have led to the destruction of the heroin. Hence, the information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Palampur. The police joined Narinder Dutt and Sanjeev Kumar and went to the house of Priya, where Priya, Sumit Kumar, and Ritik Kumar (the present petitioner) were found. One person ran away after seeing the police and could not be apprehended. The police searched the room and recovered 16.06 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested Priya and the co- accused. They revealed the name of the person who had absconded as Mohit. The police also arrested him. The police checked the bank account and found financial transactions. The police sent the heroin for analysis, and it was found to be diacetylmorphine. The petitioner, Ritik Thakur, is residing in the house from where the recovery was effected. Priya Devi, Sumit,

Ritik Thakur, and Mohit used to put the packets of heroin at different places as per the directions of Abhishek Sahota. They would share the location with Abhishek Sahota, who would transmit it to the purchaser. This fact was confirmed from the deleted photographs found in Sumit’s mobile phone. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the house is 16.06 grams, which is less than commercial. The petitioner is young and of impressionable age. He should be afforded a chance to reform himself. The police have completed the investigations, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may make. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is the main supplier of the heroin. This fact is confirmed by the financial transactions and the deleted photographs from the mobile phone of co-accused Sumit. The petitioner used to keep heroin as per the directions received from Abhishek Sahota. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a crime in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)

57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied)

58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)

59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although

it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.

60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx

62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time, while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:

2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….”

10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11. The status report mentions that the police searched the house and recovered 16.06 grams of heroin. The house belonged to the petitioner and the co-accused Priya. The petitioner and the co-accused were also present in the house; therefore, prima facie, the petitioner was found in possession of 16.06 grams of heroin.

12. The quantity of heroin found in possession of the petitioner, recovered from the house, is less than the commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.

13. The petitioner is aged 19 years. He does not have any criminal antecedents. He is entitled to a chance to reform himself. Keeping him behind the bars would expose him to hardened criminals, which would make his chances of reformation bleak.

14. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.

15. It was submitted that the petitioner used to keep the heroin as per the direction of the main accused Abhishek Sahota; however, there is no material at this stage to substantiate this fact. The police had found the deleted photographs in the mobile phone of the co-accused and not in the petitioner’s mobile phone. There is no other material to show that the petitioner is a supplier of heroin. Hence, he cannot be detained in custody on the basis that he is a supplier of heroin.

16. It was submitted that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of the crime in case of his release on bail. This apprehension is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner because this apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions. Hence, the petitioner's detention is not justified because of the fact that he is likely to indulge in the commission of the crime.

17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: -

(i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

(v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

18. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai, District & Open-Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and to the learned Trial Court through FASTER.

20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th October, 2026 (Chander)