Kulwant Singh Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.919 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.06.2026

_______________________ Kulwant Singh State of Himachal Prad	_________________________________ .....Peti Versus esh ..…Resp	________ tioner ondent
_______________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justic Whether approved for	_________________________________ e Sandeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?¹	________
_______________________ For the Petitioner:	_________________________________ Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.	________
For the Respondent:	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Additional Advocates General, Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Deputy Advocates General, for	Panwar, with Mr. Banshtu, State.
	ASI Sunny Bodh, P.S. Tapri, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, along with record.	District present

¶4

________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Bail petitioner, namely Kulwant Singh, who is behind the bars since 23.02.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0011 of 2026, dated 23.02.2026, under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Tapri, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh.

¶6

2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Sunny Bodh, P.S. Tapri, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record made available to to this Court reveals that on 23.02.2026, Policy party present

¶7

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

¶8

-2-

¶9

on NH-05, Tapri at 12:25 pm, stopped car bearing No.HP-25-A4642, make Alto, for checking. Since persons sitting in the car got perplexed and started making excuses, Police deemed it necessary to cause search of the car as well as occupants and allegedly, Police, after having associated independent witnesses, recovered 8.29 grams of heroin from the back seat, which at relevant time was kept beneath the foot-mat. 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, and arrested all the accused. Though coaccused Amit Kumar and Kiran Kumar already stands enlarged on bail, pursuant to order passed by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., but bail petitioner is behind bars. Though bail petitioner had also applied for bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, but the same was dismissed on the ground that in past, two cases under the NDPS Act already stand registered against him.

¶10

4. 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

5. 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

¶12

-3-

¶13

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 bail petitioner is a drug peddler and he has been indulging in illegal trade of narcotics in the State of Himachal Pradesh, as a result thereof, lives of many young children have been spoiled. He states that in past, two cases under the NDPS Act already stand registered against the petitioner, which fact itself suggests that bail petitioner is a hardened criminal and in the event of his being released on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶14

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Manoj Pathak, 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 occupants of the car in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that quantity of contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner was intermediate, coupled with the fact that co-accused already stand enlarged on bail, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail.

¶15

-4-

¶16

7. No doubt, in past, two cases under the NDPS Act stand registered against the petitioner, but such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to conclude that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being released on bail, he may flee from justice, rather, taking note of the quantity of contraband, this Court is persuaded to agree that petitioner has become a drug addict. Since petitioner has become drug addict, no fruitful purpose would be served by putting him behind bars for indefinite period, rather in such situation, he is required to be provided immediate medical assistance for his rehabilitation, so that he is brought back to mainstream at the earliest. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted and guilt, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, there appears to be no justification to keep the bail petitioner behind bars for indefinite period, which would not only amount to pretrial conviction, but would also be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

8. 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

¶18

-5-

¶19

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 Additional 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.

¶20

9. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

-6-

¶24

11. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI ,

¶25

(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.

¶26

12. 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.

¶27

13. 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 ₹1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶28

-7-

¶29

(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;

¶30

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

¶31

(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

¶32

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

¶33

14. 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.

¶34

15. 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.

¶35

16. 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.

¶36

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶37

19^th June, 2026 Rajeev Raturi

Kulwant Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant 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

Hardev Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Ajay Vs State of Hp

Adarsh Rana Vs State of Hp

Deepak Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Kartar Singh Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Another

Virender Singh Rana Vs State of Hp