CRMPM/1978/2026 on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.1978 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Shah @ Arun Kumar

…….Petitioner

Versus

State of HP

… Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Raunak Satpathy & Mr. Harsh

Vardhan, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

ASI Ajay Kumar, PS Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Bail petitioner, namely Sandeep Shah @ Arun Kumar, who is behind bars since 17.04.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter, “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 190 of 2021, dated 13.10.2021, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. In terms of order dated 05.10.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Ajay Kumar has come present with the record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 13.10.2021, police party, present near Sanjauli-Dhalli bypass road, after having received secret information that persons sitting in car bearing registration No. HR-26-DL-8122, standing near Sanjauli-Dhalli crossing, indulges in illegal trade of narcotics, constituted raiding team and apprehended the aforesaid car in the presence of independent witnesses. Since the occupants of the car, namely Sandeep Shah, present bail petitioner, and co-accused Manoj and Pawan, got perplexed and started making excuses, police deemed it necessary to cause search of the vehicle as well as occupants thereof and allegedly recovered 33.23 grams of heroin from the side pocket of the driver's seat door. At the time of recovery, present bail petitioner, who otherwise happens to be owner of the vehicle, was sitting on the driver's seat. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of the aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR detailed hereinabove and arrested the bail petitioner on 14.10.2021 along with other co-accused. Bail petitioner, along with other co-accused, was enlarged on bail on 29.10.2021 by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, but since he absconded from the trial, he was declared proclaimed offender on 17.01.2025. Subsequently, it came to be transpired that petitioner stood arrested in FIR No. 107 of 2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla and as such, his custody was transferred in the instant case vide order dated 22.04.2025, and since then, he is behind bars.

4. Since challan stands filed before the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that co-accused already stand enlarged on bail, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of regular bail.

5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan before 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 the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse the status report as well as other record made available by the Investigating Officer, Mr. Kahol states that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may again indulge in such activities. He states that in past, four other cases under ND&PS Act already stand registered against the petitioner, which fact itself suggests that bail petitioner has not mended his ways, rather he has turned into a hardened criminal who has no fear of law. Mr. Kahol states that though bail petitioner is not a resident of Himachal Pradesh, but repeatedly he has been involved in criminal cases in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Lastly, Mr. Kahol states that otherwise also, petitioner does not deserve relief in the case at hand on account of his previous conduct. True it is that though petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail in the case at hand in the year 2021, but he absconded and as such, was declared proclaimed offender. Since bail petitioner absconded for almost one and a half years, as a consequence of which trial was unnecessarily delayed.

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that contraband came to be recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses.

7. No doubt, rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity, but keeping in view previous conduct of the petitioner, whereby he, despite having been enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions, failed to appear before the trial Court, as a consequence whereof he was declared proclaimed offender, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. Bail petitioner absconded for almost one and a half years, as a consequence whereof trial was unnecessarily delayed.

8. Moreover, this Court finds that in past, four cases under ND&PS Act stand registered against the petitioner, which itself suggests that bail petitioner is a habitual offender. Most importantly, this Court finds from the record that though bail petitioner hails from the State of West Bengal, but he repeatedly visits Amritsar in the State of Punjab and purchases contraband therefrom, which is thereafter repeatedly sold/supplied in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

9. Though learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that bail petitioner is a drug addict, but having noticed his previous conduct, this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission raised on behalf of the petitioner.

10. Learned Special Judge, Shimla, having taken note of the recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, proceeded to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail in the year 2021, subject to certain conditions, but yet, bail petitioner did not mend his ways and was again arrested in another criminal case registered under the ND&PS Act. Bail petitioner absconded for almost one and a half years, and thereafter, his custody was transferred from one case registered under ND&PS Act to the present case.

11. True it is that guilt of the petitioner is yet to be established on record in the other cases registered against the petitioner under

ND&PS Act, but petitioner's act of getting himself involved in the present case that too under ND&PS Act, after registration of the FIR which is the subject matter of the present case, compels this Court to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may again indulge in such activities.

12. Moreover, this Court finds that prosecution, with a view to prove the guilt of the petitioner, has already examined 11 prosecution witnesses out of 24 and for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses, matter has been posted on 21.11.2026. Since trial has already been delayed on account of the petitioner's failure to appear before learned trial Court, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who, besides being a resident of another State, is a habitual offender.

13. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no reason to accept the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail and as such, the same is rejected.

14. However, having taken note of the fact that FIR in the case at hand was registered in the year 2021, coupled with the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for almost one and a half years, this Court hopes and trusts that Court below would make all-out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 15.01.2027.

Otherwise also, this Court, on the administrative and judicial sides, has been issuing directions to the learned trial Courts to decide the cases of under-trials on priority basis, so that freedom of such persons is not curtailed for an indefinite period.

15. Registry to apprise Court below with regard to the passing of the instant order, enabling it to do the needful well within the stipulated time.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge October 14, 2026 (sunil)