Disposed¶12

Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2025CRMPM/1655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh; Cr.MPM No. 1655 of 2025; regular bail; Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; FIR No. 76 of 2023; Sections 20 and 25 NDPS Act; PS Sadar Bilaspur; inordinate delay in conclusion of trial; 23 of 24 prosecution witnesses examined; I.O. last witness; withdrawal of bail petition with liberty to file afresh; trial to conclude by 31.10.2025; Justice Sandeep Sharma; High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage, with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate stage, if required and desired; court below urged to conclude trial preferably on or before 31.10.2025, failing which the regular-bail prayer on account of inordinate delay will be considered. ¶12

Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, given that 23 of 24 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and only the I.O. remains.

¶7

Court's answer

Prayer for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial is not tenable, as 23 of 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined, only the I.O. remains, and the trial is likely to be concluded shortly.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is permitted to be withdrawn at this stage with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate stage, if required and desired.

¶12

Key takeaways

All out efforts are to be made by the court below to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 31.10.2025.ratio¶12
If the trial is not concluded by 31.10.2025, this Court shall have no option but to consider the petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.ratio¶12
This Court has repeatedly advised the courts below, on judicial as well as administrative sides, to conclude trials of undertrials on top most priority so that their freedom is not curtailed for an indefinite period.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.MPM No. 1655 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decision 5.8.2025): Regular-bail application under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand, in custody since 30.3.2023 in FIR No. 76 of 2023 (Sections 20 and 25, NDPS Act; PS Sadar, District Bilaspur), pressed on the sole ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. With 23 of 24 prosecution witnesses already examined and only the I.O. left (trial fixed for 5.9.2025), the Court held the delay-based bail prayer not tenable. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate stage. The court below was urged to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 31.10.2025, failing which the Court would consider the regular-bail prayer on the ground of inordinate delay; Registry directed to apprise the court below of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MPM No. 1655 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.8.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General withMr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of present bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the bail petitioner for grant of regular bail in respect of FIR No. 76 of 2023, dated 30.3.2023 under Sections 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

¶6

2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Lakinder Singh, has come present with record.

¶7

3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, prayer for grant of bail has been made on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. It is claimed in the petition that bail petitioner is behind bars since

¶8

¶9

30.3.2023, but till date, learned trial court has not been able to conclude the trial, as a result thereof, freedom of the bail petitioner is being curtailed for indefinite period, which is not permissible under law. However, having carefully perused status report as well as record made available to this Court, this court finds that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 23 witnesses have been already examined and now only one witness i.e. I.O. remains to be examined, for which purpose, trial court has already fixed the date on 5.9.2025.

¶10

4. Though Mr. Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that since it took almost two years for the respondents to examine the 23 prosecution witnesses, considerable time is likely to be consumed in recording the statements of last prosecution witness, but this Court is not persuaded to accept the afore submission of Mr. Chaudhary, for the reason that court below has already fixed the date on 15.9.2025, for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in any eventuality, I.O. shall be examined on date fixed by the trial court. Since on account of afore facts, trial is likely to be concluded shortly, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, is not tenable.

¶11

¶12

5. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage, if required and desired. Ordered accordingly. Having taken note of the fact that 23 prosecution witnesses out of 24 PWs have already been examined and court below has already fixed the matter for 5.9.2025, this Court hopes and trusts that all out efforts shall be made by the court below to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably on or before 31.10.2025, failing which this Court shall have no option, but to consider prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Needless to say, this Court on judicial as well as administrative sides, has been repeatedly advising the courts below to conclude the trial of under trials on top most priority so that their freedom is not curtailed for an indefinite period. Registry is directed to apprise the court below with regard to passing of the instant order.

Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shakuntla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Dr.Susheela Rana Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Manju Bakshi Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr.

Hem Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

Balam Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others