2025:HHC:2976 REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2304 of 2024 Reserved on: 3rd January, 2025 Announced on: 10th January, 2025 ____________________________________________________________ Jitender Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjeeta Meghta and Mr. Paras Ram, Advocates.

For the respondent: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Jitender Singh], who is in custody since 06.03.2024 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.33 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024, registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, [H.P.], under 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2025:HHC:2976 -2- REPORTABLE Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act ).

FACTUAL MATRIX IN BAIL PETITION:

2. Case of the petitioner as set up by Ms. Ranjeeta Meghta and Mr. Paras Ram, Advocates, is that bail petitioner met two other co-accused at Bus Stand Pathankot [Punjab], when, he was asked by other two co-accused to visit Chamba [Himachal Pradesh] for sight-seeing. Bail petitioner reached Chamba on 05.03.2024. On the next day, on 06.03.2024, bail petitioner boarded a Bus No.HP-73-2697 from Chamba to Pathankot and as soon as the bus reached Tunihatti at about 11:30 a.m., the bus was intercepted by Police Patrolling Party. Bail petitioner along with two other co- accused were seated at seat Nos.41, 41 and 42 of the aforesaid bus. It is averred in the bail petition that co-accused Suraj Kumar, who was sitting on seat No.41, was carrying a bag and the Police Party asked Suraj Kumar to open the bag for checking. He resisted.

2025:HHC:2976 -3- REPORTABLE Consequently, the Police Personnel, carried the search, when, contraband, i.e. charas, weighing 1.126 Kgs. was recovered from the bag, being carried by co-accused, Suraj Kumar. It is averred that the bail petition had no knowledge about the contraband being carried by co- accused Suraj Kumar. Nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner. It is averred that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said case. It is averred that bail petitioner had filed an application for bail on 09.04.2024, but the same was rejected by Learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, on 25.04.2024. In the bail petition, the bail petitioner has furnished undertakings that he shall abide by all such terms and conditions, as may be imposed by this Court and bail petitioner, shall furnish a surety bond and shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court, without prior permission of the Trial Court or this Court, in case, the bail is granted. It is further averred that the bail petitioner belongs to a reputed 2025:HHC:2976 -4- REPORTABLE family and has no past criminal antecedents. It is further averred that since the bail petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024 and his personal liberty has been curtailed by detention which is prolonging, coupled with the fact that trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail.

STATUS REPORT:

3(i). Perusal of Status Report, indicates sequences of events, narrating that the Police Patrolling Party searched Bus No.HP-73-2697, in which petitioner and other co-accused were travelling. It is borne out from the Status Report that during search, Police Patrolling Party found that Suraj Kumar, co-accused, who was sitting at Seat No.41 in the bus, was carrying the 2025:HHC:2976 -5- REPORTABLE contraband, which was recovered, weighed and was found to be containing 1.126 Kgs. of charas. After completing all codal formalities, police investigated the matter, in which bail petitioner was participated. Status Report further refers to SRFSL Report dated 09.04.2024, which corroborates recovery of charas from co-accused, Suraj Kumar, who was sitting at Seat No.41 in the said bus. Status Report further indicates that prosecution intends to examine 22 witnesses, out of which 2 PWs have been examined, as on day and the case is fixed for examining 10 other witnesses on 19/20.02.2025. In this background, Status Report, has been filed by the State Authorities, with the prayer for dismissing of the bail petition.

4. Heard Ms. Ranjeeta Meghta, learned counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

2025:HHC:2976 -6- REPORTABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS:

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

MANDATE OF LAW:

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 the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation; and 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, under Section 483 BNSS, the three judges bench of 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 2025:HHC:2976 -9- REPORTABLE relevancy, while considering 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 the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under:

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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the illustrative time-tested broad parameters which are required to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail; which have recently been reiterated 2025:HHC:2976 - 11 - REPORTABLE by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 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 as to 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 the 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 2025:HHC:2976 - 12 - REPORTABLE 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 the presence of an accused during the trial and the 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, 2025:HHC:2976 - 13 - REPORTABLE as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution.

ANLYSIS: CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:

9. While examining the claim of the bail petitioner in the instant case, this Court is conscious of the fact that, in case, an accused is alleged involved in commercial quantity of contraband [charas of 1.126 Kgs.], therefore, in normal parlance, the rigors of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act are to be satisfied before acceding the claim for bail in terms of the mandate of law laid, down by 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, has been reiterated by 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 aforesaid background, this Court proceeds to examine the claim of bail petitioner [Jitender Singh], for bail, in view of the 2025:HHC:2976 - 14 - REPORTABLE Statutory mandate of Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act and on other grounds available to the bail petitioner, by way of exceptions to the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, in terms of the mandate of law of Hon'ble Supreme Court, hereinbelow.

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

10(i). Case of bail petitioner is that he was not aware that accused, Suraj Kumar, was carrying the contraband in his bag. In these circumstances, once 2025:HHC:2976 - 15 - REPORTABLE the bail petitioner specifically denies the fact that he had knowledge of accused Suraj Kumar carrying the contraband and no material has been placed on record by State Authorities in the Status Report that the bail petitioner [Jitender Singh], had knowledge of contraband, therefore, the bail petitioner appears to be not guilty of the offence.

10(ii). Status Report filed by State Authorities do 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 the contraband as alleged in the instant case. In these circumstances, the bail petitioner appears to be not guilty, at this stage, and therefore, the bail petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

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 any cogent material on record. In these circumstances, based on Status Report/material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the bail petitioner is not guilty at this stage.

10(iv). Moreover, the prosecution story appears to be doubtful in terms of Status Reports dated 20.12.2024, filed before this Court and the earlier Status Report dated 16.04.2024 [taken on record] filed by State Authorities before Learned Trial Court, indicates that it was Suraj Kumar and Pawan Kumar, who went for purchasing the alleged contraband whereas, the bail petitioner [Jitender Singh] had not gone along with them and had stayed back at Chamba, belies the accusation, against the bail petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no reasonable 2025:HHC:2976 - 17 - REPORTABLE grounds exist for believing that the bail petitioner is not guilty of offence.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING REPITITION OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL:

Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, including the Status Reports, this Court is of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the bail petitioner is guilty and nothing exists that bail petitioner is likely to repeat the offence after release on bail and, therefore, even by applying the twin principles in Section 37(1)

(b) of the NDPS Act , the bail petitioner [Jitender Singh] is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

[B]. CLAIM FOR BAIL ON OTHER EXCEPTIONAL GROUNDS: CIRCUMSTANCES:

police report dated 26.06.2024 has been filed and charges have been framed and out of 22 PWs, two PWs have been examined and evidence of 8 other PWs is scheduled for 19.02.2025 and on 22.02.2025 before Learned Special Judge, Chamba.

13(i). While dealing with the claim for bail, where the accused had suffered incarceration for more than 14 months, coupled with the fact that there is no much progress in the trial and such trail was to take considerable time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh 2025: HHC:2976 - 19 - REPORTABLE Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and another , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2025, granted bail to the accused therein, in the following terms:-

If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.

27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

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:

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 2025:HHC:2976 - 27 - REPORTABLE 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."

16(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:-

RIGORS OF STRINTENGENT PROVISIONS IN SPECIAL ENACTMENTS [SECTION 37 OF NDPS] TO GIVE WAY FOR BAIL BASED ON PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND NOT LIKELY TO COMPLETE TRIAL IN A CONSIDERABLE TIME:

What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors. One of the most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum 2025:HHC:2976 - 31 - REPORTABLE and maximum sentence for the offence. Another important consideration is the higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered. The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 , as the case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear in mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be substantially attributed to the accused, the Constitutional Courts can always 2025:HHC:2976 - 32 - REPORTABLE decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.

29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.

31. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, and the appellant shall be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of CC No. 9 of 2023 pending before the Principal Session Judge, Chennai, on the following conditions:

d. Before the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall surrender his passport to the Special Court under the PMLA at Chennai;

e. The appellant shall regularly and punctually remain present before the Courts dealing with scheduled offences as well as the Special Court and shall cooperate with the Courts for early disposal of cases; and f. If the appellant seeks adjournments on non- existing or frivolous grounds or creates hurdles in the early disposal of the cases mentioned above, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

32. The appeal is allowed on the above terms." 17(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 of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, has been reiterated by treating it to be of paramount importance of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that the 2025:HHC:2976 - 34 - REPORTABLE incarceration is unreasonably prolonged for conclusion of trial, such incarceration amounts to punitive detention and 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 11 months [since 06.03.2024] and even trial is likely to take considerable time for the reason that out of total 22 PWs only 2 PWs have been examined as yet, 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 of bail shall certainly violates the principle that "bail is rule and jail is an exception". Even, the State Authorities, have failed 2025:HHC:2976 - 36 - REPORTABLE 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.

NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:

MANDATE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GRANTING BAIL IN CASES OF COMMERCIAL QUANTITY WHERE THERE WAS NO LIKELIHOOD OF ITS COMPLETION:

19(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 extended benefit of bail by invoking Article 21 of Constitution of India as prolonged incarceration defeats the precious 2025:HHC:2976 - 38 - REPORTABLE fundamental rights and such fundamental rights have to override the statutory embargo in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act in the following terms:-

19(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 2025:HHC:2976 - 39 - REPORTABLE no criminal antecedents as in this case, in the following terms:-

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act . His bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about one year and four months in jail. The petitioner and com accused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50 grams.

Considering the fact that the petitioner criminal antecedents and the entire facts and circumstances has no of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court."

19(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:-

2025:HHC:2976 - 40 - REPORTABLE "The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 / 21 & 8 / 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 450 gm of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report Rated 13.09.2924, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent- State but no one has appeared for the state. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court."

MANDATE OF THIS COURT IN GRANTING BAIL IN CASES OF COMMERCIAL QUANTITY WHERE TRIAL WAS PROLONGED AND THERE WAS NO LIKELIHOOD OF ITS COMPLETION IN REASONABLE PERIOD:

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 2025:HHC:2976 - 45 - REPORTABLE 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....."

20(i). While dealing with claim for bail in commercial quantity of 1.004 Kgs. charas and taking into account the prolonged incarceration for about 13 months, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has extended the concession of bail to the 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:-

2025:HHC:2976 - 46 - REPORTABLE "10. Though, the case at hand is to be decided by learned trial Court, in the totality of evidence collected on record by the investigating agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears to be no justification for this Court to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail, for an indefinite period during trial, especially when rigours of S.37 of the Act are not attracted on account of recovery of small quantity.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this court to judgments dated 4.3.2023 and 15.3.2023 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 62 and 570 of 2023, titled Puran Chand v. State of HP and Prem chand v. State of HP., submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, coordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court enlarged the accused on bail on the ground of inordinate delay. Having perused aforesaid judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court finds that in both the cases, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the accused, but yet court having taken note of the fact that they were behind the bars for more than three years, proceeded to enlarge them on bail.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no 2025:HHC:2976 - 47 - REPORTABLE likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions.

13. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate his plea for enlarging the petitioner on bail, has referred order dated 12.10.2020 passed by a three judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh , whereby petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was enlarged on bail, for having been in detention for 2 years and 7 months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to be examined and last witness was examined in February, 2020 and, thereafter, there was no further progress in the trial.

14. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Crl) No. 1904 of 2023 titled Sunil Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh , decided on 29.3.2023, has ordered enlargement of petitioner therein, who was behind bars for one and half years, on the ground of delay in trial and conduct of the petitioner.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to judgment of a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court, passed on 19.7.2022 in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail, especially in the cases where rigors of Section 37 are attracted.

16. In the instant case, bail petitioner is behind bars for more than 13 months and till date trial has not been completed and there are very bleak chances of conclusion of the same in near future, as such, there appears to be no justification to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, during trial."

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:-

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

21. The Status Reports filed by the State Authorities do not indicate that any recovery is still attributable to the petitioner in the aforesaid incident.

TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

22. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any material on record, at this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities can be safeguarded, at this stage by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.

23. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any material on record, at this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities are 2025:HHC:2976 - 50 - REPORTABLE taken care of, by imposing stringent bail conditions as mandated herein, in the instant case.

Keeping in view the material on record, as borne out from the Status Reports and the statements recorded during Investigation and the evidence of PWs adduced at this stage, and the law referred to above coupled with the fact that no reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusation against the bail petitioner at this stage coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion; with another added fact that delay in trial was not attributable to the bail petitioner therefore, the further detention certainly amounts to implicating the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures-suspicion, by way of punishment, defeating the very intent and object of bail; by making petitioner to be incarcerated for about 11 months now; and in these circumstances, the plea for bail carries weight and the same is accordingly granted.

2025:HHC:2976 - 51 - REPORTABLE

24. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State that bail petitioner, may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail orders, in later part of this order.

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

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. Naushera, Tehsil Mukerian, Hoshiarpur [Punjab], on 2nd Sunday of every month at 08.00 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 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;

(xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of 2025:HHC:2976 - 53 - REPORTABLE bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.;

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, and Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur [Punjab], for information and necessary action in terms of this order.

2025:HHC:2976 - 54 - REPORTABLE Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

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