Vijender Singh Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 1120 of 2026 Date of Decision : 15.7.2026

----------------------------------------------- Vijender Singh @ Chotu Versus	--------------------------- ...Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh -----------------------------------------------	…Respondent ---------------------------
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shar	ma, Judge.
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹ -----------------------------------------------	---------------------------
For the Petitioner Ms.Kiran Mamta K.	Dhiman and Ms. Bhatwan, Advocates.
For the Respondent Mr. Rajan Panwar, General a	Kahol & Mr. Vishal Additional Advocates nd Mr. Ravi Chauhan
& Mr. An Advocates -----------------------------------------------	ish Banshtu, Deputy General. ---------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)

¶4

Bail petitioner namely Vijender Singh @ Chotu, who is behind bars since 13.2.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 05 of 2026, dated 2^nd February 2026, registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, under Sections 21, 25, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 238 (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

¶5

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

¶6

2

¶7

2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Rajesh Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

¶8

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 2.2.2026, police after having received secret information that persons sitting in Car bearing registration No.PB01D 2241 are indulging in illegal trade of narcotics, intercepted afore car at 2:00AM, near Mehendli Bridge and allegedly recovered one bag containing 83.00 grams of charas/heroin from the dashboard of the afore car. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed all codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and arrested occupants of the car. Bail petitioner is behind bars since 13.2.2026, whereas seven other co-accused already stand enlarged on bail. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

¶9

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that

¶10

3

¶11

keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that petitioner is a drug peddler. He states that in the past, three cases under the NDPS Act were registered against him. He also states that record of call detail reports and the financial transactions adduced on record, clearly establish the factum with regard to the sale of narcotics by the petitioner in various parts of the state. He states that sum of Rs.4,85,000/-was exchanged between him, co-accused Hardeep Singh and co-accused Jashandeep Singh, who is the kingpin. He states that though contraband in question never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, but evidence adduced on record clearly reveals that the contraband, which was recovered from the dashboard of the car was actually supplied by the petitioner. Hence, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that event, he may not only flee from justice but may again indulge in these activities.

¶12

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that commercial quantity of contraband, never came to be

¶13

4

¶14

recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather same was recovered from the car in question being driven by co-accused Jashandeep and Dharmpreet Singh, who were found sitting in the car. Afore co-accused already stand enlarged on bail, whereas the name of the petitioner came to be incorporated in the FIR on the basis of alleged financial transaction inter-se him and co-accused Jashandeep Singh. As per investigation, sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- was found to be transferred by co-accused Jashandeep Singh to the account of the bail petitioner prior to registration of the case.

¶15

6. No doubt, commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered in the case at hand and as such, rigours of Section 37 are attracted, but bare perusal of aforesaid provision nowhere suggests that court is estopped from considering the prayer for grant of bail made by the petitioner in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, rather in such cases, court after having afforded opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor can always proceed to grant bail, in case it is satisfied that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of his being enlarged on bail he will not indulge in such activities again. Since in the case at hand, contraband never

¶16

5

¶17

came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner coupled with the fact that case came to be registered against the petitioner on the basis of financial transactions inter-se him and Jashandeep, from whose conscious possession, contraband was recovered, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that at this stage, no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced on record with regard to complicity of the petitioner in the case at hand.

¶18

7. “ Whether amount was transferred in the bank account of the petitioner on account of sale and purchase, if any, of the contraband at the behest of the co-accused or not , is a question to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution, however, having taken note of the afore glaring aspect, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him.

¶19

8. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the

¶20

6

¶21

investigating agency Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

¶22

9. Needless to say, 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 probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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.

¶23

10. 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

¶24

7

¶25

judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

¶26

11. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court

¶27

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.

¶28

12. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI ,

¶29

(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 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.

¶30

8

¶31

13. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar

¶32

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.

¶33

14. 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, the 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. 5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with following conditions:

¶34

(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;

¶35

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶36

(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

¶37

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶38

(e) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency.

¶39

9

¶40

15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the

¶41

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.

¶42

16. 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.

¶43

17. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

¶44

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶45

July 15, 2026 (manjit)

Vijender Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijender Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santokh Singh Vs Baldeep Singh

Sanjeev Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar and Another Vs Vikas Sharma

Banty Vs State of Hp

Rushel Sharma Vs the State of Hp

Jitender Singh Vs Manish Sood