Personal liberty is a fundamental right that should only be curtailed when necessary, and bail should secure attendance at trial without being punitive.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

ASI Bhupi Ram, Police Station, Gaggal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is present along with record. Status report stands filed. The same is taken on record. Copy, whereof, has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of bail. The same arises out of FIR No.91 of 2024, dated 21.09.2024, registered at Police Station, Gaggal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 21 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the case at hand are that the concerned Police party on 20.09.2024 were checking vehicles on the bridge at Rajol Nazadgarh. The bail petitioner was traveling on a motorcycle bearing No.PB-02ES-9553. On seeing the Police party stationed at the aforesaid bridge, the bail petitioner got perplexed. The Police on seeing the bail petitioner asked him to stop. On checking the motorcycle, 21.4 grams of Heroin/Chitta was recovered from its tool box. Further procedural formalities under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Code of Criminal Procedure were concluded by the Police. The petitioner was apprehended by the Police and he is in custody since 21.09.2024.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the status report and the record so produced.

5. From perusal of the status report, it is evident that the investigation, in the case at hand, is complete. Challan stands filed before the Court on 16.11.2024. No recovery has to be instituted from the bail petitioner. No purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

6. While deciding an application for bail, Court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. A Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds, whether the accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits, which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable.

7. 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. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.

8. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

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 preventative. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be a resident of Village Chavinda Devi, Tehsil Majhitha, District Amritsar, Punjab. In order to ensure his presence at trial, stringent condition can be imposed while granting bail.

10. 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. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.

11. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua the social circumstances of the petitioner whereby it can be made out that the petitioner is likely to betray the confidence, that the Court may place in him to turn out to take justice at the hands of the Court.

12. 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 whe