Rinjin Dema Khamba Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.479 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026

________________________________________________________________ Rinjin Dema Khamba .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. 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. ASI Yash Pal, IO, PS Rohru, District Shimla, present along with record. ________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

Bail petitioner, namely Rinjin Dema Khamba, who is behind the bars since 18.09.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.119/2025, dated 18.09.2025, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Yash Pal, IO, PS Rohru, District Shimla, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

¶6

Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 18.09.2025, Police, after having received secret information that

¶7

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

¶8

-2-

¶9

a boy and a girl residing in Room No.204 of Sunrise Hotel, Rohru, are indulging in illegal trade of narcotics, raided the aforesaid room in the presence of independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 6.74 grams heroin. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid intermediate quantity of contraband, Police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, arrested both the accused and since then, they are behind bars.

¶10

Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail.

¶11

While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, learned Additional 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 her, she does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner along with co-accused Pratham Gupta had been indulging in illegal trade of narcotics. He states that though in past, no case stands registered against the petitioner, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that she is close associate of co-accused Pratham

¶12

-3-

¶13

Gupta, who was also found in the same room and is involved in many criminal cases. He states that since petitioner has committed heinous crime, having adverse impact on the society, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge her on bail, because in that event, she may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that petitioner herein has been falsely implicated because intermediate quantity of contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, however, this Court, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than seven months, coupled with the fact that she is a woman and in past, no case stands registered against her, is inclined to consider her prayer for grant of bail.

¶15

Moreover, this Court finds that recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from Room No.204, Hotel Sunrise, Rohru, which at relevant time was occupied by co-accused Pratham Gupta and present bail petitioner. Though in past, one case stands registered against the co-accused Pratham Gupta, but there is no case registered against the bail petitioner, as such, it may be premature at this

¶16

-4-

¶17

stage to conclude the complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner in the commission of offence punishable under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Whether petitioner had any knowledge with regard to possession/presence of contraband in the room or whether she had actually connived with the co-accused Pratham Gupta, are the questions, to be decided by the Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is a first-offender, coupled with the fact that she has already suffered for more than seven months, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, which is otherwise not permissible in law.

¶18

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 be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, her 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 Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, she may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail

¶19

-5-

¶20

petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI ,

¶24

(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

¶25

-6-

¶26

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.

¶27

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar 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.

¶28

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 her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, with following conditions:

¶29

(a) she shall make herself 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;

¶30

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

¶31

(c) she shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶32

-7-

¶33

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶34

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

¶35

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶39

10^th April, 2026

¶40

( Rajeev Raturi )

Rinjin Dema Khamba v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinjin Dema Khamba 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

Lokeshwar Dutt and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Gurwinder Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Hukam Chand Vs Raj Pal

Mahesh Kumar Vs Tilak Raj

Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Jeevan Kumar