Mahavir Gupta vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Mahavir Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State.

JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioner herein, who despite his being granted regular bail in FIR No.227/2021, dated 17.08.2021, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, is behind bars for his having not able to arrange surety amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, is aggrieved of order dated 11.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.MP No.360 of 2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby afore Court while allowing the application for modification of order dated 03.07.2025 passed in FIR, detailed hereinabove, proceeded to reduce the surety amount from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. In nutshell, case of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner being poor person is not in a position to furnish surety to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Mr. Narwal states that since factum with regard to financial position of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the Court concerned, coupled with the fact that Hon’b