IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2294 of 2024 Reserved on: 10th January, 2025 Announced on: 10th January, 2025 ____________________________________________________________ Praveen Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Udaynand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Praveen Kumar], who is in custody since 19.12.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as BNSS), originating from the FIR No.160 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, [HP], under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act ).

FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION:

2. Case as set up by Mr. Udaynand Sharma, Learned Counsel is that the bail petitioner has been implicated by police in FIR No.160 of 2023, alleging that on 19.12.2023 at about 10:00 AM, while, the police was on patrolling near Shivduala, near Kaccha Road, a Taxi bearing registration No.HP-01M-4495 came, in which, the petitioner and the co-accused Rajinder Singh were travelling. On seeing the police, the co-accused Rajinder Singh become perplexed and tried to run away and policy apprehended him and to have recovered the bag, containing the alleged contraband which was kept near handbrake of the front seat of vehicle.

Pursuant thereto, the search was conducted and bag was found to be containing 1.44 grams of Cannabis/Charas. Case of the petitioner is that bail -3- petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated and nothing has been recovered from or at the instance of bail petitioner. It is averred that the bail petitioner has filed an application for bail, which was withdrawn on 16.3.2024, Annexure P-1 and the second bail application which was dismissed on 28.06.2024, Annexure P-2 by this Court. It is averred that the Investigation is complete and the Challan

-Final Police Report has been presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is averred that prosecution intends to examine 20 PW's. The bail petitioner has furnished undertakings that he shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the bail as may be imposed by this Court, with further undertaking that the bail petitioner shall not causing any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case .

In this background, the prayer for bail has been made.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITES IN STATUS REPORT:

3(ii). Status Report reveals that Investigation started and the Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. Status Report reveals that compliance of Section 52-A was made at instance of police, by Magistrate concerned. Police took into custody the RC, Insurance and other documents. Bail petitioner was put to remand and were made to undergo medical examination. The sample was sent to the SFSL for analysis which was corroborated as Cannabis/Charas by SFSL Authorities. Status Report indicates that Investigation has been completed and the Challan- Final Police Report has been furnished to jurisdictional Court i.e. Learned Special Judge Mandi on 19.4.2024. -6- Status Report indicates that the matter has been fixed for Prosecution Witnesses for 14.02.2025. Based on the Status Report the Learned State Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

4. Heard Mr. Udaynand Sharma, Learned Counsel for bail petitioner and Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

5. Before dealing with the bail petition, it is necessary to have a recap of statutory provisions of Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which read as under:-

State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,--

(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend -7- to one lakh rupees; and

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub- clause (b), (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which-

(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or -8-

(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India."

MANDATE OF LAW ON BAILS :

6. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for post arrest or regular bail is to be examined/ tested within the parameters prescribed of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for regulating the claim for grant of bail in 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, mandating that bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted if frivolous and groundless accusation is made and -9- no prima facie or in case no reasonable grounds exists to believe or point out towards the accusation. These parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi , (2020) 5 SCC 01.

6(i). While dealing with the case for grant of regular bail, 439 Cr PC {now Section 483 BNSS}, the Honble Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh , (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para-25 that the nature of the crime has a huge relevancy, while considering the claim for bail.

6(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh , 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular or anticipatory bail as under:

each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.

12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the CrPC , as the case may be."

6(iii). In CBI versus Santosh Karnani , (2023) 6 SCALE 250, it has been held that the illustrative time-tested broad parameters are required to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail; which have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj , 2023 SCC Online SC 1085.

7. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power under Section 439 Cr PC {now Section 483 of BNSS} has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite

law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre- arrest bail or regular bail], a formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been roped in the crime needs to be tested in the background of self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters as mandated by law, as referred to herein above.

8. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement , decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, though a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, a Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence collected in support thereof,

severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, character of an accused, circumstances which are peculiar to an accused, reasonable possibility of securing presence of an accused during trial and reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence and the claim for bail has to be examined by carving a balance between the rights of an accused and the larger societal/public interest.

In this background, while testing the claim for bail, a Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of broad-parameters as referred to above , without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution.

ANALYSIS: CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:

9. While examining the claim of bail petitioner in the instant case, this Court is conscious of the fact that, if an accused is alleged to be involved in commercial quantity of contraband [which is Charas

of 1.044 Kgs , as in instant case], 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 has been 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.

In the aforesaid background, this Court proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner [Praveen Kumar], for bail, in view of the Statutory mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and on other grounds available by way of exceptions to the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, as carved out and mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as discussed here-in-below.

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

10. Perusal of Status Report and the material on record [including evidence of PWs recorded as on day as discussed hereinbelow], indicates that neither any prima facie case nor any reasonable grounds exist to believe that bail petitioner is guilty of the offence in instant case, at this stage. 10(i). Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner has placed on record the Challan-Final Police Report. Perusal of the Statement of PW-2, an Independent- Spot witness, has failed to identify the accused. PW-2 has deposed that bag was not opened by the police in his presence and he deposes that even the two passbooks of the co-accused Rajinder Singh and Adhar Card and E-Shram Card of the petitioner [Praveen Kumar] were not taken out from the bag in his presence and the alleged substance was not weighed in his presence by the police. He deposed that the police had already stopped some vehicles

and it was only on the asking of the police he signed the documents without going through its contents. Even the Statement of PW-3, another Independent Spot Witness, has not supported the prosecution story, by deposing that nothing was recovered by police in his presence. He has feigned ignorance that both the accused were travelling together. He denies that the bag was checked by police in his presence. PW-3 has denied that alleged contraband was weighed in his presence. He deposed that he seen the accused for first time in the Court. In these circumstances, the above material on record reveals that there is neither any prima facie case nor any reasonable grounds exists against the bail petitioner, who appears to be not guilty of the offence, at this stage. 10(ii). The rigours of Section 37(1) (b) of NDPS Act are not invocable when, as per the prosecution story the bag containing the alleged contraband i.e. Cannabis/Charas, weighing 1.44 Grams was seized

by police from a bag placed near the hand gear on front seat of Car-Taxi, bearing registration No. HP-01M

-4495, which has been belied by Independent Spot Witnesses [PW-2 & PW-3], who have deposed that no contraband was recovered from petitioner and thus, the guilt is not made out against the bail petitioner. 10(iii). Case of the bail petitioner is that once Taxi, HP-01M-4495 was hired by the co-accused, Rajinder Singh for traveling from Sarkaghat to Dharampur and the police had recovered the bag containing the alleged contraband with two passbooks of the co-accused, Rajinder Singh, then, in these circumstances, the accusation-guilt is not made out against the bail petitioner [Praveen Kumar] at this stage.

10(iv). 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 bail petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record that the bail petitioner had produced, manufactured, possessed, sold, transported, imported, exported or used contraband as alleged in instant case. Presumption of guilty cannot be permitted to be inferred when, the accusation, if any, is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. In these circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not guilty, at this stage, and therefore, the bail petitioner deserves to be granted concession of bail.

10(v). Section 29 of NDPS Act, alleging abatement and criminal conspiracy is a matter to be tested, examined and proved during trial. 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:

11. 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:-

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

REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL:

BAIL NOT TO BE DENIED BY WAY OF PENALTY :

him of the speedy trial amounts to curtailing and violating the sacrosanct rights of personal liberty dehors the principle that bail is rule and jail is an exception, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024, decided on 9.8.2024, in following terms:-

53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to 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."

14(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 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 the 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 BASED ON PROLONGED INCARCERATION & TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:

of MPLA and proviso to Section 43-D (5) of Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 and Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024, in V. Senthil Balaji versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement , has mandated that rigors in Special Enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS Act, will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and prolonged incarceration so as to prevent the deprivation of curtailment of personal liberty and right to speedy trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India, in the following terms:-

15(i). Reiterating that statutory embargoes in Special Enactments have to yield in case of prolonged incarceration when, weighed against the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the 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 of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, by granting bail in the following terms:-

Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances as detailed hereinabove, once neither any prima facie case nor any reasonable

grounds exists against the bail petitioner and the material on record, the bail petitioner appears to be not guilty at this stage, coupled with the fact the bail petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 1 year and 1 months [since 19.12.2023] and even trial is likely to take considerable time for the reason, that out of a total 20 PWs, only 3 PWs have been examined as yet therefore, in facts of instant case, any further detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner and that too on mere 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. Continued detention certainly violates the principle of "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". Even the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and considerable

time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial and therefore, on totality of circumstances and the 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 GRANTING BAIL IN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY WHERE THERE WAS NO LIKELIHOOD OF ITS COMPLETION:

16(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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended benefit of bail by invoking Article 21 of Constitution of India, as prolonged incarceration defeats the 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:-

16(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 the benefit of concession of bail to an accused, who was facing incarceration of one year and four months and had no criminal antecedents, as in this case, in the following terms:-

16(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 and the accused had no criminal antecedents, as in this case, in the following terms:-

MANDATE OF THIS COURT GRANTING BAIL IN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY-TRIAL PROLONGED AND NO LIKELIHOOD OF COMPLETION OF TRIAL:

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 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....."

17(i). While dealing with claim for bail in a case relating to commercial quantity of 1.004 kgs charas and prolonged incarceration for about 1 year 11 months, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has extended concession of bail, 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:-

17(ii). Recently, the Co-ordinate 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 commercial quantity of charas, i.e. 1.209 Kgs, where, the accused was facing incarceration

for about 12 months, in the following terms:-

"2. .....Allegedly, police recovered one rucksack (pithu bag) from the vehicle containing huge quantity of contraband. On weighing, police found that 1.209 Kgs of charas/sulfa was being transported by the occupants in the vehicle, as detailed hereinabove. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband......"

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.............."

NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL QUA TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

nor placed any material on record, at this stage, to infer that after being released, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with facts of the case. However, apprehension if any, of State Authorities can be safeguarded, at this stage by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.

NO ADVERSARIAL CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR THRAWTLING JUSTICE:

may flee away from justice yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court imposes stringent conditions the present bail orders, so as to carve out a balance between the rights of the bail petitioner and also to safeguard the interests of State Authorities.

22. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

23. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law as referred to above , and in the peculiar facts of this case, the instant petition is allowed, and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Praveen Kumar] on bail, subject to the observance of following conditions:-

{Rs Seventy Five Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar bond amount each, to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court concerned;

(ii). Petitioner shall undertake and shall also appear on every date of trial hereinafter;

(iii). Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by 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 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. Dharampur, District Mandi, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 08.00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour;

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

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

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

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

(xii). 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 the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to

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

(xiii). 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.;

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh, for information and necessary action in terms of this order.

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

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 10, 2025 [himani]