2025:HHC:8233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 443 of 2025 Decided on: 28th March, 2025 ____________________________________________________________ Mehar Singh .......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. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.

SI Dalip Singh, I.O. Police Station Baijnath, present in person with records.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner, Mehar Singh [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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2025:HHC:8233 the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (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

-3- 2025:HHC:8233 registration, occupied by three persons and one black pulsar motorcycle bearing No HP-33-7650 was found parked. On inquiry, the person sitting on driver seat disclosed his name Tilak Raj, and the bail petitioner [Mehar Singh] was occupying co-drivers seat and another person was sitting on rear seat disclosed his name as Missu Ram. 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

-4- 2025:HHC:8233 petitioner [Mehar Singh], 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.

2(iii). It is further averred that the bail petitioner earlier moved an application for bail before Learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (H.P) which was dismissed on 02.01.2024, [Annexure P-2].

-5- 2025:HHC:8233 Thereafter the second bail petition [Cr.MP(M) No.277of 2024] was listed before this Court and on receipt of Status Report, the same was withdrawn by bail petitioner on 20.03.2024 [Annexure P-1].

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

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN THE STATUS REPORTS

3. Upon issuance of notice the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 27.03.2025 on instructions of SHO Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, (HP) and the matter was finally heard. 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

-6- 2025:HHC:8233 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 pic 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 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 and the bail petitioner [Mehar Singh] was occupying co-drivers seat and another person was sitting on rear seat disclosed his name Missu Ram. On checking of Eon Car the police found one carry bag printed with green and red flowers from underneath the drivers seat. On untying the bag, the police recovered sticks like black substance and after smelling it appears to be Charas-Cannabis

-7- 2025:HHC:8233 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 made to undergo medical examination. Status Report indicates that the magistrate allowed the police remand on 19.5.2023 for 4 days. 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 and out of 22 PWs and 15 PWs were examined at time of filing of bail, but

-8- 2025:HHC:8233 7 PWs stood examined by Learned Trial Court.

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. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondent-State.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

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

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--

(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

(b) under the laws of such place, is an

- 10 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 BAIL:

6. 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

- 11 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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. 6(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 .

- 12 - 2025:HHC:8233 ANALYSIS: CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:

7. 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 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.

8. In the aforesaid background, this Court proceeds to examine the claim of the bail petitioner [Mehar Singh] for bail, in view of the statutory mandate

- 13 - 2025:HHC:8233 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.

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

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

9(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.

9(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

- 14 - 2025:HHC:8233 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.

9(iii). Section 29 of NDPS Act, alleging abatement 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:

10. 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

- 15 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, the bail petitioner [Mehar Singh] deserves to be enlarged on bail.

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

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:-

11(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:-

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

12. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the eyes of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan

- 18 - 2025:HHC:8233 versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:-

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:

BAIL NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY WAY OF PENALTY:

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

- 24 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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:

15(i). While reiterating the grant of bail, despite

- 30 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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, only 15 PWs have been examined as yet, and therefore, further detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on

- 32 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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:

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, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail by invoking Article 21 of Constitution of India as the prolonged incarceration defeats precious fundamental

- 34 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 benefit of concession of bail to an accused, who was facing incarceration of one year and four months in

- 35 - 2025:HHC:8233 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, 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. 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

- 40 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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

- 41 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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:-

17(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 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....."

17(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

- 45 - 2025:HHC:8233 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 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.

BROADER PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN GRAVER OFFENCES {COMMERCIAL QTY} APPLICABLE IN LESSER GRAVER OFFENCES {INTERMEDIATE QTY} :

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE :

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

CLAIM FOR ENLARGEMENT ON BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY:

22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that co-accused, namely, Tilak Raj [Cr.MP(M) No.1462 of 2024] has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.01.2025.

The above contention has force when, no

- 48 - 2025:HHC:8233 recovery has been effected from the bail petitioner, 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:

23. 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 [Mehar Singh] on bail, subject to observance of the following conditions:-

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

- 50 - 2025:HHC:8233

(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.

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, District Mandi and to Superintendent of Police, Kangra at

- 51 - 2025:HHC:8233 Dharamshala 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 March 28, 2025.