Sandeep Vs State of Hp

2026:HHC:21897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

----------------------------------------	Cr. MP (M) No.844 of 2026 Date of Decision: 4.06.2026 --------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep	...Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ----------------------------------------	…Respondent -------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sand *Whether approved for repor* ----------------------------------------	eep Sharma, Judge. *ting?*¹ -------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner:	Mr. M.S. Katoch , Advocate.
For the Respondent:	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State.
---------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)	SI/SHO Daljeet Singh, PS Bhawanagar, District Kinnaur, present with record. -------------------------------------------------------

¶4

Bail petitioner namely Sandeep, who is behind bars for the last five months, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.10 of 2026, dated 1.2.2026, under Sections 21 and 29 of ND &

¶5

PS Act, registered at Police Station Bhawanagar, District Kinnaur, H.P.

¶6

2. Pursuant to order dated 15.5.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and SI/SHO Daljeet Singh, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

¶7

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

¶8

2026:HHC:21897

¶9

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 1.2.2026, police party having noticed suspicious activities in a Car bearing registration No. HP923202 parked on NH-5, caused search of the vehicle as well as occupants of the car in the presence of independent witnesses and allegedly, recovered 10.73 grams of chitta/heroin Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed all necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and since then, bail-petitioner is behind bars, whereas co-accused Tilak Raj stands enlarged on bail, but prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected on the ground that in past two cases stand registered against him. Prior to filing of the application at hand, bail petitioner had also filed application for bail, but same was also dismissed as withdrawn. Now since challan stands filed and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court for grant of regular bail.

¶10

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 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. Mr. Kahol, states that there is

¶11

2026:HHC:21897

¶12

overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶13

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with Mr.M.S. Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this court finds that contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses. However having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for five months coupled with the fact that rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the case at hand, this Court deems it fit to consider prayer of the bail petitioner for grant of bail. Though

¶14

it has been argued by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner is a drug peddler, but quantity of contraband recovered from him in the instant case as well as previous cases, suggests that he is a drug addict and is required to be provided medical assistance at the first instance so that he is brought back to the mainstream at the earliest. In case, bail petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, there is every chance of his becoming hardened criminal. This Court also came to be apprised that father of the petitioner has recently met with an

¶15

2026:HHC:21897

¶16

accident and is bed ridden. Since there is none to take care of the father of the bail petitioner coupled with the fact that his guilt is yet to be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when he has remained behind the bars for approximately five months.

¶17

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 be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of Fundamental Right granted 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.

¶18

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

¶19

2026:HHC:21897

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (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.

¶24

2026:HHC:21897

¶25

10. 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.

¶26

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 Rs.1,00,000/with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶27

(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;

¶28

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

¶29

(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

¶30

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

¶31

2026:HHC:21897

¶32

12. 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

(Sandeep Sharma)

¶36

Judge June 4, 2026 Manjit

Sandeep v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Sourav Patiyal @ Fandi Vs State of Hp and Another

Devinder Singh Vs Randeep Kaur

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Kartik Vs State of Hp

Mohan Lal Vs State of Hp

Vipin Kumar Vs Prittam Singh