Karan Sharma Vs State of Hp

¶1

1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 224 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

¶4

__________________________________________________________________________ Karan Sharma

¶5

……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur & Mr. Vidush Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

Cr.MP(M) No.386 of 2026

¶9

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation.

¶10

Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer, especially when delay caused in maintaining accompanying criminal revision petition does not appear to be intentional or willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner, as such, the same deserves to be condoned.

¶11

2

¶12

In view of above, delay, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained is condoned. The application is disposed of.

¶13

Cr. Revision No. 224 of 2026

¶14

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lays challenge to orders dated 06.10.2025 and 19.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge-I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in bail applications bearing registration Nos.565 & 621 of 2025, whereby court concerned, while rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of NBWs, also rejected his prayer for grant of bail.

¶15

Petitioner herein, who is an accused in case FIR No.50 of 2023, dated 20.03.2023, registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of ND & PS Act, had applied for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C before this Court i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.2953 of 2023. This Court, having taken note of the fact that contraband, i.e. 45.86 grams of heroin/chitta, was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather he was named in the FIR on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, enlarged him on bail vide order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) subject to condition that he shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion. However, fact remains that accused defaulted in appearing before learned trial Court, as a result thereof, NBW came to be issued against him for securing his presence.

¶16

3

¶17

However, on 22.10.2025, petitioner surrendered before the Court and learned trial Court, taking lenient view, again extended to him the benefit of bail with a specific condition that he shall remain present before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless duly exempted by the Court. However, despite availing aforesaid indulgence, petitioner continued to file exemption applications on one pretext or the other and failed to remain present in Court. On 02.04.2025, neither accused appeared in the Court nor any exemption application was moved on his behalf, as a result thereof, learned trial Court cancelled the bail granted in his favour and issued NBW to secure his presence. Ultimately, accused was apprehended and produced before the learned trial Court on 31.08.2025, whereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. In the afore background, petitioner filed an application under Section 483 read with Section 72(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for cancellation of Non-bailable warrants and grant of bail, being Cr.MP(M) No.565 of 2025, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, by way of another application, being Cr.MP(M) No. 620 of 2025, under Section 480 read with 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, petitioner prayed for grant of bail, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-8).

¶18

After rejection of aforesaid bail applications by learned trial Court, petitioner filed bail application, i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.2889 of 2025 (Annexure P-9) before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn

¶19

4

¶20

reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. After being granted aforesaid liberty, petitioner again approached this Court in Cr.MMO No.1265 of 2025, titled as Karan Sharma Vs. State

¶21

of Himachal Pradesh, but same was also withdrawn with the liberty to file fresh petition under Section 483 of BNSS (Annexure P-10). Petitioner again filed bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, but same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-11). In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside orders passed by learned trial Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos.620 and 621 of 2025.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same. It is apparent from the perusal of afore orders that despite there being specific direction issued by this Court, while enlarging the petitioner on bail vide order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-6) in Cr.MP(M) No.2953 of 2023, directing him to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date, petitioner failed to do so, as a result thereof, trial is being unnecessarily delayed. Though learned trial Court at first instance accepted the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of NBW and again enlarged him on bail, but petitioner again failed to come present before learned Court below, as a result thereof,

¶23

5

¶24

learned Court below had no option, but to cause his presence through NBW’s and remand him to the judicial custody.

¶25

Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly admitting default on the part of the petitioner, submitted that on account of his omission to appear before learned Court below during trial, petitioner has already suffered for more than 18 months in two spells. He submitted that though at first instance, this Court, having taken note of the fact that petitioner was booked under Section 29 of ND & PS Act, had enlarged him on bail, but yet petitioner is behind bars for more than 18 months in two spells. He stated that since the petitioner has been in continuous incarceration for almost 18 months, coupled with the fact that considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail, rather that would amount to pre-trial conviction. He stated that petitioner shall ensure his personal appearance before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing, as such, one more opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to rectify the mistake committed by him in past.

¶26

To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by learned Court below. He submitted that despite there being specific direction issued by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2953 of 2023, petitioner defaulted in appearing

¶27

6

¶28

before learned trial Court, as a result thereof, prosecution has not been able to conclude trial till date. He submitted that past conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that he has no respect for law and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. Though as has been observed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below, but having taken note of the fact that despite there being bail granted by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2953 of 2023, petitioner has already suffered for more than 18 months in two spells, coupled with the fact that considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, this Court is persuaded to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the mistake committed by him in past.

¶29

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 06.10.2025 and 19.11.2025 are quashed and set aside. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶30

(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;

¶31

7

¶32

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

¶33

(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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

11. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the 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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

April 21, 2026 (sunil)

¶40

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

Karan Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Sharma 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

Anita and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Gorkh Ram Vs Hp State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Mohinder Singh Chatranta Vs Hpfc

Yog Raj Vs Ranbir Singh

Som Dutt Vs the State of Hp and Others

Leela Vs State Bank of India