Govind Ram Vs the State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.1123 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026

__________________________________________ Govind Ram Versus	______________________ .....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh	..…Respondent
__________________________________________ Coram:	______________________

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

________________________ For the Petitioner:	________________________________________ Mr. Vikas Rathore and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocates.
For the Respondent:	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State.
________________________	HC Sanjay Kumar, No.73, IO, Police Post Tikkan, Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, present in person along with record. ________________________________________

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

Bail petitioner, namely Govind Ram, who is behind bars since 31.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.44 of 2025, dated 09.04.2025, under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and HC Sanjay Kumar,

¶10

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

¶11

-2-

¶12

No.73, IO, Police Post Tikkan, Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

¶13

3. Close scrutiny of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 05.04.2025, Police party headed by ASI Pankaj Katoch, on the basis of secret information, caused search of illegal plantation of opium. While Police party reached near Mathibjagan, they noticed plantation of opium in the fields of peas. Police, after having associated Village Revenue Officer, conducted search of field and found that in total 520 plants of opium were planted. Since it came to be transpired that field from where 520 plants of opium were planted is in possession of present bail petitioner, Police after having completed necessary codal formalities lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, and conducted investigation. During investigation, it transpired that land upon which plants of opium was found comprised in Khasra No.837, which is mustarka land and is owned by persons namely Devi Singh, Govind, Ram, Budhi, Kamla, Shukri, Bhagi Devei, Gyarhi Devi etc. in equal shares. Since all the above named persons by way of affidavit disclosed to the investigating agency that field, from which 520 plants of opium were found to have been grown, is in possession of present bail petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid information, Police arrested present bail petitioner on 31.01.2026 and since then he is behind bars. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the

¶14

-3-

¶15

bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail.

¶16

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that 520 plants of opium were unauthorizedly planted by petitioner herein on the land in his possession. He states that otherwise also, previous conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that he is a drug peddler as one case under the NDPS Act already stood registered against petitioner in past and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶17

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, Police party had allegedly recovered 520 plants of opium planted in the land comprised in Khasra No.837, which is joint inter se persons namely Devi Singh, Govind, Ram, Budhi, Kamla, Shukri, Bhagi Devei, Gyarhi Devi etc. It is only on the basis of affidavit given by aforesaid persons to the effect that land upon which illegal plantation of opium was found is in possession of present bail petitioner, petitioner herein came to be

¶18

-4-

¶19

named in the FIR and is behind bars since 31.01.2026. It is not in dispute that the land comprised in Khasra No. 837 is jointly owned by the persons named hereinabove, coupled with the fact that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to establish that land on which the illegal cultivation of opium was in the exclusive possession of the petitioner, rather till the time, land in question is not partitioned in accordance with law, all the joint owners can be said to be owner of the same. Whether portion of the land upon which illegal plantation of opium was carried out had fallen to the share of petitioner pursuant to some family settlement is a question to be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but certainly taking note of joint ownership of the land, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than five months. No doubt, in past, one case under the NDPS Act stood registered against petitioner, but that cannot be a ground to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, especially when guilt, if any, in the case registered against the petitioner in past is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

¶20

6. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to

¶21

-5-

¶22

be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

-6-

¶27

9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI ,

¶28

(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.

¶29

10. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus

¶30

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.

¶31

11. 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, present 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 ₹2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶32

-7-

¶33

(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;

¶34

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

¶35

(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

¶36

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

¶37

12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty

¶38

or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶39

13. 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.

¶40

14. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

¶41

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶42

09^th July, 2026 Rajeev Raturi

Govind Ram v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Ram v. the 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

Murugun and Anr. Vs Gaurav Karol

Karan Vs State of Hp

Arun Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Chunko Devi Vs the State of Hp

Sourav Manta Vs State of Hp

Narotam Singh Vs State of Hp