Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Mehar Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 443 of 2025
Decided On : 28-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijender Katoch, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General., SI Dalip Singh, I.O. Police Station Baijnath, present in person with records.

Prolonged pre-trial detention without a clear and prima facie case warrants bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to personal liberty.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 29 - Bail Petition - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, related to an FIR under the NDPS Act - The petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2023, with allegedly 1.509 Kgs of Charas found in a vehicle he occupied - The prosecution argued the case for denial of bail based on the severity of accusations and evidence presented - The court considered factors such as the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner exceeding 1 year and 10 months and the completion of investigation, noting discrepancies in witness statements - The court further emphasized that bail should not be punitive and recognized the legal principles outlined in various Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the rights under Article 21 regarding personal liberty - The court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty at this stage of the trial. (Paras 5, 9(ii), 9(iii), 12, 24)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner should be granted bail due to prolonged detention without trial and the lack of a prima facie case against him at this stage.

Issues: The court addressed whether there were grounds for denying bail based on the gravity of the charges and the conduct of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial violates personal liberty rights and concluded that the nature of allegations and delays justified granting bail.

Result: Bail granted with conditions.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a bail application for Mehar Singh, who has been in custody since 19.05.2023, related to FIR No. 98 of 2023 under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case is that Charas weighing 1.509 Kgs was recovered from a vehicle occupied by the petitioner and others, based on a police raid conducted near a temple, following secret information (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner has denied involvement, claiming false implication and that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. He has also provided undertakings to cooperate in the investigation and trial (!) (!) .
The investigation is complete, and the challan has been filed. The trial has not yet concluded, with some witnesses yet to be examined, and the proceedings have experienced delays (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that bail should be granted where allegations are frivolous or groundless, and where there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty at this stage. The severity of charges and potential for influence or flight are factors to consider for denial (!) (!) .
The court notes that the petitioner was implicated in a case involving commercial quantity of contraband, which normally triggers stringent conditions under the law. However, due to prolonged detention and slow progress of the trial, exceptions are made (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court considers that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is guilty at this stage, and that the investigation and evidence do not indicate involvement in activities under the NDPS Act (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, exceeding one year and ten months, and the slow pace of the trial, justify granting bail to prevent infringement of personal liberty and uphold the right to a speedy trial (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlights that the object of bail is to prevent punitive detention and that detention should not be used as a form of punishment before conviction. Conditions can be imposed to address concerns of tampering or influence (!) (!) .
The principles of granting bail include balancing the rights of the individual with societal interests, and considering the likelihood of tampering, influence, or fleeing. The right to liberty under Article 21 is paramount, especially in cases of prolonged detention (!) (!) (!) .
In cases involving serious charges but where delays are evident, the courts are inclined to enlarge the accused on bail, especially when the accused has no criminal antecedents and the trial is delayed beyond a reasonable period (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that bail is generally the rule, and detention is the exception, and that prolonged incarceration without trial can violate fundamental rights (!) (!) (!) .
Conditions for bail include personal bonds, regular appearance, non-involvement in further offences, reporting requirements, and safeguards against tampering or influence [p_152–p_162].
The court notes that the fact of prior bail orders for co-accused and the absence of recovery from the petitioner strengthen the case for granting bail (!) .
Overall, the court concludes that the prolonged detention, slow progress of the trial, and lack of reasonable grounds to believe in guilt at this stage justify granting bail, with conditions to mitigate risks (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific advice.

Table of Content
1. bail petition basis and factual background. (Para 1)
2. prosecution's case details and investigation outcomes. (Para 2)
3. arguments on bail and state stand. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. legal framework for evaluating bail applications. (Para 6 , 7)
5. court's discretion and legal interpretation on bail. (Para 8)
6. conditions and observations regarding prolonged detention. (Para 9 , 11)
7. right to a speedy trial and consequences of delays. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
8. judicial precedents supporting entitlement to bail. (Para 16)
9. conclusion ordering release on bail. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

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 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 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 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]. Thereafter the second bail petition [Cr.MP(M) No.277of 2024] was listed before this Court and on re