IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Baljeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 412 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 25, and 29 - Bail petition for regular bail filed in connection with drug-related charges - The petitioner has been in custody since 22.06.2024, and the trial is expected to take time - No past criminal history attributed to the petitioner - Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule, and the consequences of such incarceration are grave - The object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not punitive - The State has not expressed apprehension regarding the petitioner fleeing or intimidating witnesses - Judicial discretion exercised in favor of the petitioner, allowing bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 7, 9, 11)
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail. The same arises out of FIR No.96 of 2024, dated 22.06.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.
2. Status report filed, the same is taken on record. Copy whereof supplied to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Heard counsel for the parties.
4. The Police Authority, in the case at hand, while on patrolling duty and also detection of crime in the suburbs of Shimla, had received a secret information that the bail petitioner along with co-accused-Angrej Singh had taken a room on rent in Tota Ram Building Lower Sangti. On the basis of the same, after complying with the provisions of the NDPS Act and on associating independent witnesses, a search of the room of the accused/bail petitioner and co-accused was conducted, wherein after 46.82 grams of heroin along with an electronic weighing machine was recovered.
5. The investigation in the case at hand is complete and post completion of investigation, challan in case at hand has been filed before the concerned Court on 20.08.2024. Charges, in the case at hand, have been framed. Matter is now listed for recording of prosecution witnesses before the trial Court on 03.05.2025.
6. At the time of deciding the bail petition, a detailed discussion of evidence so collected and produced by the prosecution, is to be avoided, as it may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the accused/applicant.
7. Bail petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2024. Trial is going to take time for its conclusion. The charges against the bail petitioner are yet to be proved. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. No past criminal history has been attributed to the present bail petitioner. Further detention of the accused would not serve any fruitful purpose, rather would prove pre-judicial to the rights of the petitioner.
8. Punishment begins after conviction. Every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence.
9. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive.
10. The respondent/State in the status report filed have not expressed any apprehension regarding the petitioner fleeing from the course of justice and adversely affecting the trial by intimidating the witnesses. In this regard, suffice it to state that the petitioner can be put to terms for the purpose of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial.
11. Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.96 of 2024, dated 22.06.2024, registered at Police Station Dhalli, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand] with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:-.
(i) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper w
Bail is granted based on the presumption of innocence, absence of prior criminal history, and lack of risk of flight or witness tampering.
The court ruled that bail should be granted when no contraband is found in possession, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged cri....
Bail is granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, especially if no contraband is found in possession of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless necessary to ensure attendance at trial, with conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court emphasized that bail is a means to secure attendance at trial, and personal liberty should only be curtailed when necessary, reflecting the presumption of innocence.
The court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the lack of necessity for continued custody after investigation completion.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted to ensure attendance at trial, not as a punitive measure.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court granted bail based on the presumption of innocence, noting that the quantity of contraband did not invoke stricter bail provisions.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail may be granted when the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, ensuring the applicant's rights are protected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.