Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Sonu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 449 of 2025
Decided On : 11-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21, 25, 61, and 85 - Bail application - Petitioner in custody since 20.11.2023, seeking bail after multiple rejections - Allegations of possession of contraband, including Chitta and Smack/Heroin - Court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, reiterating the principle that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected - No prima facie case established against the petitioner, and prolonged detention without trial violates the right to speedy trial. (Paras 6, 7, 11, 16, 17)
(B) Personal liberty - The court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must not be punitive and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
(C) Conditions for bail - The court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the interests of justice while granting bail. (Paras 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 20.11.2023 for allegedly possessing contraband, with the police recovering a total of 173.48 gms of narcotics from his vehicle. The petitioner claimed false implication and sought bail after multiple applications were rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie case against the petitioner and noted the prolonged detention without trial.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the accusations against the petitioner and the implications of prolonged detention on personal liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continued detention of the petitioner without trial was unjust and violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as punishment.
Result: The petition for bail was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail under specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner [Sonu], being in custody since 20.11.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , (referred to as BNSS ) originating from FIR No. 152 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, [H.P.], under Section 21, 25 , 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel, is that on 20.11.2023, while the police party was on patrolling in Banne Di Hatti area on the main road to Gagret near Industrial Area, Ambota, they received a secret information at 3:50 pm, that a person sitting on the driver seat in vehicle was carrying huge quantity of contraband, beneath the driver’s seat. On reaching, the spot at about 5:15 pm, the police, on disclosure of their identity, found the bail petitioner [Sonu] to be sitting on the driver’s seat. Thereafter, vehicle was searched and a polythene bag was found, containing two other plastic bags, one containing red coloured plastic polythene containing yellowish wet material and in the other transparent plastic envelope containing pink coloured powder in the second bag. On weighing the yellowish material was found to be Chitta, weighing 83.28 gms and the other pink powder was found to be Smack/Heroin weighing 94.72 gms, thus, total contraband which was recovered was 173.48 gms, from the bail petitioner.
2(i). After registration of FIR No.152/2023 dated 20.11.2023, the bail petitioner was arrested on 20.11.2023. After his arrest, the bail petitioner moved an application for bail vide Bail Application Registration No.47/2024 on 12.01.2024, before the Learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una [H.P.] but the bail application was rejected on 20.02.2024, vide [Annexure P-2], annexed with the case records. Consequent upon the rejection of bail by the Learned Trial Court, the petitioner moved applications for bail before this Court vide Cr.MP(M) No.322 of 2024, which was dismissed on 24/26.04.2024 [Annexure A-3] and another application was withdrawn on 30.08.2024 [Annexure A-4]. Thereafter the bail petitioner moved another bail application before Learned Special Judge (1), Una, which was dismissed on 01.10.2024 [Annexure A-5] and another bail petition was dismissed on 05.02.2025 [Annexure A-6].
2(ii). Case of the petitioner-accused is that, he has been falsely implicated. It is averred that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the accusation and he has been wrongly and falsely implicated with alleged contraband. Bail petitioner has furnished an undertaking that he abide by all the terms and conditions as will be imposed by this Court. Bail petitioner has averred that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not flee away from investigation and trial. It is averred that personal liberty of petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could neither be curtailed or taken away by way of penalty by prolonging the detention by presuming the guilt against the petitioner.
2(iii). Learned Senior Counsel submits that out of 20 PWs witnesses, only 4 PWs have been examined and the matter is fixed for Prosecution Evidence on 21.04.2025. Instant bail petition has been filed by bail petitioner, through his wife with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court on 07.03.2025, the respondent-State Authorities filed a Status Report dated 28.03.2025, when with the consent of parties the matter was finally heard.
3(i). Perusal of Status Report reveals that on 20.11.2023 while the police party was on patrolling, near Banne Di Hatti, nearby the industrial area, Ambota on the Gagret road, a secret information was received by the police party at about 3:50 pm, to the effect that a vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32C
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged detention without trial violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without substantial evidence, especially in cases of prolonged detention without trial.
Bail is a rule, and denial of bail without sufficient grounds infringes personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged detention without trial infringes personal liberty under Article 21.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, necessitating the grant of bail even under stringent provisions like the NDPS Act if no reasonable groun....
Prolonged pre-trial incarceration may justify bail under NDPS Act when there is no substantial evidence against the accused and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is violated.
Bail is granted when no prima facie case exists against the accused, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21, especially during prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Bail can be granted even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act when prolonged incarceration occurs without trial, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Under prolonged detention circumstances, bail should be granted if no reasonable grounds exist to believe in the guilt of the accused, respecting Article 21 rights.
Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case: no recovery from petitioner, co-accused confession inadmissible, no prima facie guilt under Sec 37, prolonged 10-month incarceration with trial delay vi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
