2025:HHC:10266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 130 of 2025 Announced on: 11th April, 2025 ____________________________________________________________ Missu Ram .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner, Missu Ram [being in custody 19.05.2023] has approached this Court, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as BNSS] seeking regular bail originating from the FIR No. 98 of 2023 dated 19.05.2023, registered with Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra [H.P.], under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2025:HHC:10266 -2- (referred to as NDPS Act ) and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Case set up by Mr. Vijender Katoch, Learned Counsel is that prosecution case is that on 18.5.2023 at around 09.45 p.m, while the Police Party headed by Inspector Gaurav Bhardwaj alongwith other Police Officials were on patrolling duty near GMS Kyori, a secret information was received that two persons were selling Charas near Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple. On receiving this information, Inspector Gaurav Bharadwaj and two Independent witnesses namely Pradhan Shiv Kumar and Up-Pradhan Rovan Lal reached village Sail and thereafter, IO Gaurav Bharadwaj in his private car left for Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple and the Independent witness also went to said temple spot in separate vehicle. On reaching Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple, at around 10.20 p.m, police party found one white Eon Car, without registration, occupied by three persons and one black 2025:HHC:10266 -3- pulsar motorcycle bearing No HP-33-7650 was found parked. On inquiry, the person sitting on driver seat disclosed his name Tilak Raj, the person sitting on co-driver seat revealed his name as Mehar Singh and the person sitting on rear seat of the vehicle disclosed his name Missu Ram [bail petitioner]. On checking of Eon Car, the police found one carry bag printed with green and red flowers from underneath the driver's seat and after untying bag, the police recovered sticks like black substance i.e. Charas-Cannabis and upon weighing it came out to be 1.509 Kgs. The allegedly recovered contraband was kept in same carry bag and was sealed with eight seals and documents of Car and Motorcycle were also seized and after completing all the codal formalities, the rukka was sent leading to registration of FIR.

2(i). The matter was investigated and the Challan was presented before the jurisdictional Court. It is averred that the allegations were totally false and the bail 2025:HHC:10266 -4- petitioner [Missu Ram], was not connected with the alleged offence. It was stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated. It is submitted that nothing was infact recovered from conscious possession of bail petitioner. It is averred that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody. 2(ii). Apart from this, the bail petitioner has given certain undertakings that he shall participate in the investigation and trial thereafter and shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any witness or person acquainted with the case and shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner. It is averred that in case of release, the bail petitioner shall abide by all other conditions which may be imposed by this Court.

In above backdrop, the instant petition has been filed by the bail petitioner, [Missu Ram], with the prayer for granting bail.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN THE STATUS REPORTS 2025:HHC:10266 -5-

3. Upon issuance of notice the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 27.02.2025 on instructions of SHO Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, (HP) and the matter was adjourned by Learned Counsel for petitioner and the matter was finally heard on 04.04.2025.

3(i). Status Report narrates the prosecution story that on 18.05.2023, at around 09.40 p.m, the Police Party headed by Inspector Gaurav Bhardwaj received a secret information that a white Eon Car being occupied by two persons and one motorcycle was parked near Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple and they were selling Charas. After completing formalities under Section 42 (2) , Inspector Gaurav Bharadwaj reached village Sail, at 10.10 pm and two Independent witnesses namely Pradhan Shiv Kumar and Up-Pradhan Rovan Lal also reached there in pick up No HP-53-6112. Thereafter, IO Gaurav Bharadwaj left for Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple in his private car and the Independent witness also went to the said temple spot in 2025:HHC:10266 -6- their separate vehicle. On reaching Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple, at around 10.20 p.m, the police party found the white Eon Car with three occupants and one black pulsar motorcycle bearing No. HP-33A-7650 parked there. On inquiry, the person sitting on driver seat disclosed his name Tilak Raj, the person sitting on co-driver seat revealed his name as Mehar Singh and the person sitting on rear seat of the vehicle disclosed his name Missu Ram [bail petitioner]. On checking of Eon Car the police found one carry bag printed with green and red flowers from underneath the driver's seat. On untying the bag, the police recovered sticks like black substance and after smelling it appears to be Charas-Cannabis and on weighing, it came out to be 1.509 Kgs. The recovered Charas was kept in the same carry bag and was sealed and after completing codal formalities, rukka was sent leading to registration of FIR. 3(ii). Pursuant to registration of FIR, petitioner was arrested on 19.5.2023 and bail petitioner was 2025:HHC:10266 -7- made to undergo medical examination. It is averred that an inventory was prepared under Section 52-A of NDPS Act by magistrate after taking out two samples of 26 gms each and sealed with court seals, which were sent to SFSL at Junga for analysis. Status report indicates that statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Status Report further indicates that Investigation is complete and the Challan-Final Police Report has been presented before the Learned ASJ Palampur on 8.8.2023 till date out of 22 PWs, 14 PWs were examined at the time of filing of bail.

In this background, Status Report, has been filed by the State Authorities, with the prayer for dismissing the bail petition.

4. Heard, Mr. Vijender Katoch, Learned Counsel for the bail-petitioner and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent- State.

MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL:

5. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab ( 1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan , (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee , (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement , ( 2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi , (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj , 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail is to be granted where the allegations are frivolous or groundless and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point towards the accusation. However, depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and 2025:HHC:10266 -9- if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial and the character, past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. 5(i). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement , decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima- facie opinion on totality of facts in the light of broad- parameters referred to above .

ANALYSIS: CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:

6. While examining the claim for bail in the instant case, this Court is conscious of the fact that, once petitioner has been implicated with commercial 2025:HHC:10266

quantity of contraband i.e. [Cannabis-Charas] weighing 1.509 Kgs therefore, in normal parlance, the rigors of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act are to be satisfied, before acceding to the claim for bail, in terms of the mandate of law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs Mohit Aggarwal AIR 2022 SC 3444, followed in Union of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, SLP (Criminal) No. 2351 of 2023, which stands reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State by the Inspector of Police vs B. Ramu, SLP (Criminal) No.8137 of 2022 decided on 12.02.2024.

7. In the aforesaid background, this Court proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner [Missu Ram] for bail, in view of the statutory mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and also, by taking into account, the exceptions carved out by the Honble Supreme Court to rigors of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, hereinbelow.

2025:HHC:10266

[A]. CLAIM FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 37(1) (b) OF NDPS ACT:

8. This Court proceeds to examine the claim for bail in view of the rigours in Section 37 of the NDPS Act hereinunder;

8(i). Perusal of Status Report and the material on record indicates that neither any prima facie case nor any reasonable grounds exist to believe that the bail petitioner is guilty of the offence in the instant case, at this stage.

8(ii). Status Report filed by the State Authorities does not spell out any material to show that the bail petitioner has resorted to any activities, so as to invoke the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS Act, against the petitioner, at this stage. In these circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not guilty, in view of inherent discrepancies and grave contradictions in the statements of PWs, at this stage and therefore, the bail petitioner deserves to be granted concession of bail. 8(iii). Section 29 of NDPS Act, alleging abatement 2025:HHC:10266

and criminal conspiracy is a matter which is yet to be tested, examined and proved during trial. The accusation of abatement or criminal conspiracy cannot be attributed against the bail petitioner without there being any cogent and convincing material on record and thus, this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner is not guilty of the offence, at this stage. [B]. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL:

9. Status Reports filed by the State Authorities have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of offence after being enlarged on bail hereinafter.

Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this Court is of the considered view, that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty and that the petitioner is likely to repeat the offence after being released on bail and therefore, by applying the twin-tests as mandated in Section 2025:HHC:10266

37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act , the bail petitioner [Missu Ram] deserves to be enlarged on bail.

[C] CLAIM FOR BAIL ON OTHER EXCEPTIONAL GROUNDS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

10. Notwithstanding, the rigours in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act [supra], yet in view of the exceptions carved out by the Honble Supreme Court as detailed hereinunder and other circumstances, the bail petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail for the following reasons:-

2025:HHC:10266

10(ii). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and another , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2025, granted bail to an accused suffering incarceration for more than 1 year and 11 months coupled with the fact that there is no much progress in trial, in the following terms:-

11. Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

12. The petitioner and his family members as well as Respondent No. 2 and his family members will ensure that no untoward incident takes place again."

PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.

National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under:

REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL:

The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over- arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

2025:HHC:10266

22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside."

BAIL NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY WAY OF PENALTY:

settled principle of law that bail is not to 2025:HHC:10266

be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".

55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.

56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.

57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant."

13(i). While adjudicating the claim for bail, even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS Act ], the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal 2025:HHC:10266

No._____of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter has mandated that fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions, in the following terms:-

RIGOURS IN SPECIAL ENACTMENTS [SECTION 37 OF NDPS] TO GIVE WAY FOR BAIL-PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND COMPLETION OF TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:

of Enforcement, has mandated that rigors in Special Enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS Act, will melt down when, there is no likelihood of the trial being completed in a reasonable time and in view of prolonged incarceration, so as to prevent deprivation of curtailment of personal liberty and right to speedy trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, in the following terms:-

14(i). While reiterating the grant of bail, despite statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate 2025:HHC:10266

of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be of paramount importance and action of prolonging the incarceration so as to make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated by granting bail, in the following terms:-

Keeping in view the factual matrix that no reasonable grounds exist against the bail petitioner, as referred to above, coupled with the fact the bail petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than one year and ten months [since 19.05.2023] and even trial is likely to take considerable time for the reason, that out of total 22 PWs, 14 PWs have been examined as yet, and therefore, further detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. Detention of the petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial 2025:HHC:10266

of bail shall certainly violates the principle that "bail is rule and jail is an exception". Even, the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and still considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial, then, in view of mandate of law in the cases of Guddan alias Roop Narayan, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Manish Sisodia, Kalvakuntla Kavitha, Senthil Balaji and Partha Chatterjee [supra], the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

MANDATE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN BAIL IN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY: PROLONGED INCARCENATION AND COMPLETION OF TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:

following terms:-

15(i). In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s). 4648/2024, titled as Ankur Chaudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 28.05.2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail by invoking Article 21 of Constitution of India as the prolonged incarceration defeats precious fundamental rights and such fundamental rights have to override the statutory embargo in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act in the following terms:-

15(ii). In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7115 /2024, titled as Sohrab Khan versus The State of Madhya Pradesh , decided on 13.08.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended benefit of concession of bail to an accused, who was facing incarceration of one year and four months in the following terms:-

15(iii). In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9510/2024, titled as Ram Lal Versus The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17.09.2024, similar benefit of bail was extended where the incarceration was prolonged, as in this case, in the following terms:-

MANDATE OF THIS COURT GRANTING BAIL IN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY DUE TO PROLONGED INCARCENATION AND COMPLETION OF TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:

Similarly, in Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v.

2025:HHC:10266

State of Maharashtra, an accused under the UAPA was enlarged for he had been in jail for four years and there were over 147 witnesses still unexamined.

15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under-trial Prisoners) v. Union of India , it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.

17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where 2025:HHC:10266

there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."

5(iv). ......A previous bail petition bearing Cr.MP (M) No.1458/2022 instituted by the petitioner was dismissed on merit on 02.09.2022. While deciding the aforesaid bail petition, considering the fact that FIR in question pertained to the year 2020, it was hoped and expected that the learned Trial Court would make endeavour to expedite the trial. We are now at the fag end of 2023. In terms of the status report filed by the respondent, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses thus far. Statements of 23 prosecution witnesses still remain to be recorded. The zimni orders placed on record reflect that the trial has been deferred time and again for want of presence of prosecution witnesses. Considering the fact that at this stage 23 witnesses remain to be recorded, it is apparent that the trial is not going to be concluded in near future. The petitioner, who has already spent about three years and five months in custody, in my considered opinion has made out a case for his enlargement on regular bail at this stage. There is no criminal history of the petitioner. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution about the likelihood of petitioner's tampering with the evidence or winning over remaining witnesses, can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions and also granting 2025:HHC:10266

liberty to the respondent/State to seek cancellation of the bail in case the conditions are violated by the petitioner. In view of all the aforesaid reasons and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR..." 16(i). While dealing with the claim for bail in commercial quantity of poppy straw [churapost-bhukki] of 54.760 Kgs. and taking into account the prolonged incarceration for about one year and eight months, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has extended concession of bail to an accused, in Cr.MP (M) No. 1003 of 2024, titled as Vijay Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 24.05.2024, in the following terms:-

16(ii). The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 2656 of 2024, titled as Kamal Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 11.12.2024, has enlarged the accused on bail in case relating to 2025:HHC:10266

commercial quantity of charas, i.e. 1.209 Kgs. who was facing incarceration for about 12 months, in the following terms:-

21. 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, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR....."

16(iii) Recently while dealing with claim for bail, in a case relating to commercial quantity, the accused was enlarged on bail, as the accusation under Section 37(i) (b) was not satisfied on facts coupled with the factum of prolonged incarceration, in Cr.MP(M) No. 1737 of 2024, titled Purba Sherpa versus State of Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.MP(M) No. 2047 of 2024, titled Om Parkash versus State of Himachal Pradesh , decided 2025:HHC:10266

on 10.01.2025 and Cr.MP(M) No. 1606 of 2024, titled Kalu Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh , decided on 15.01.2025.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE :

justice in any manner. In absence of any material, the plea for bail deserves to be granted to the petitioner in the instant case.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT:

CLAIM FOR ENLARGEMENT ON BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY:

The above contention has force when, no recovery has been effected from the bail petitioner, 2025:HHC:10266

coupled with the fact that main accused, has been enlarged on bail, therefore, in these circumstances the claim for bail carries weight and is accepted.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

preventative and seventhly, the continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the State Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that the petitioner has misused liberty granted to him earlier; and tenthly, the petitioner has not past criminal antecedents and other co-accused have been enlarged on bail [as in Para 20] of this order; and lastly, in order to safeguard the interest of the State vis-à-vis the right of petitioner, this Court imposes stringent condition in this order and in case of any violation of or misuse of the concession-liberty, the State Authorities can seek cancellation of the concession extended to the petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal 2025:HHC:10266

liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law , referred to above , the claim of the petitioner [Missu Ram] for enlargement on bail carries weight, in the peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed above.

DIRECTIONS:

22. Taking into account the entirety of the facts, the material on record and the mandate of law and in view of the discussion made and the reasons recorded hereinabove and in the peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is allowed, and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Missu Ram] on bail, subject to observance of the following conditions:-

result in cancellation of the concession of bail as granted by this Court.

(iii). Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order;

(iv). Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ;

(v). Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court;

(vi). Petitioner after release, shall report to the Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, nearest to his native place, i.e. Patan, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi [HP] on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11.00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour ;

(vii). Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court;

(viii). Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(ix). Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case;

(x). Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises;

(xi) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration /modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition imposed by Learned Trial 2025:HHC:10266

Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after;

(xii). State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.

23. Observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove.

24. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court.

2025:HHC:10266

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 11, 2025.