CRMPM/1981/2026 on 29 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1981 of 2026 Reserved on: 28.10.2026 Date of Decision: 29.10.2026 Uploaded on: 29.10.2026 Ram Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,

Additional Advocate General. Chirag Bhanu Singh,

Judge

The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suyraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) seeking post-arrest bail in Case FIR No. 78 of 2026, dated 18.07.2026 registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 21, 25 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

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

2. The facts which emerge from the status report, so filed by the State is that the on 18.07.2026, acting upon a secret information, a team led by ASI Duni Chand conducted a raid at the residential premises of the petitioner, Ram Chand.

3. After following the codal formalities and associating independent witnesses, namely, the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Ladwada, a search of the petitioner’s yielded in the recovery of 6.54 grams of chitta (heroin). At the time of the recovery, one Prabhat (co-accused) was also present in the house. Both individuals were apprehended and arrested at the spot.

4. The petitioner along with the co-accused came to be arrested at the spot. He is presently in judicial custody.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records meticulously.

6. Admittedly, the contraband recovered from the room of the accused is intermediate in quantity, being 6.54 grams of chitta (heroin). Thus, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stricto sensu will not apply with the same vigor.

7. Even otherwise, the recovery is not solely attributed to the petitioner, as one Prabhat is also alleged to have been apprehended along with the petitioner from the same premises. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to remotely suggest that the petitioner has any previous history of dealing in narcotics.

8. The charge-sheet is stated to have already been filed before the competent Court on 08.09.2026, and as such, the trial has also commenced. Since the investigation is complete and the custody of the petitioner is no longer required for interrogation, further pre-trial detention will serve no useful purpose.

9. It further transpires from the record that the charge- sheet has already been filed. The culmination of the trial is thus likely to take sufficient time. Pre-trial incarceration is otherwise generally loathed by the Courts, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions including Union of India vs. K.N. Nazeeb 2021 (3) SCC 713 & Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 decided on 03.07.2024).

10. “Bail, not jail” is the golden thread which has been running right through the various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court starting from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1980 SC 1632), which has consistently been followed till the decision rendered in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (AIR 2019 SC 4198). The object of granting bail was further elucidated in Sanjay Chandra & Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (AIR 2012 SC 830). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further reiterated that grant of bail was a general rule, as was also categorically held in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2018) 3 SCC 22 : AIR 2018 SC 980].

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, in a catena of decisions, have repeatedly held that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The trial is still at its inception and is likely to take sufficient time. Even otherwise, the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case is intermediate. The recovery is also not solely attributed to the petitioner.

12. For all the reasons discussed hereinabove, the bail petition is thus allowed. As a sequel, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court subject to the following conditions:- "i) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor intimidate, threaten or coerce the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case; ii) That the petitioner shall put in appearance before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when directed; iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without the express permission of the Court, he shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency; iv) The petitioner shall not indulged in any similar activity again."

13. The observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined only for the purposes of the disposal of the present petition.

14. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai

District & Air Correctional Home Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

15. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Chirag Bhanu Singh)

Judge 29th October, 2026

(Shamsh Tabrez)