Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sanju – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2873 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sohail Khan
For the Respondent: Jitender Sharma

Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 25 - Bail application dismissed due to insufficient grounds for grant of bail, specifically failing to fulfill the twin conditions under Section 37 - Petitioner contended false implication and delay in trial, but prosecution has examined 9 out of 26 witnesses, with further proceedings scheduled. (Paras 1, 17, 20)

(B) Grant of bail - Courts must judiciously exercise discretion, considering the nature of charges, evidence, potential for witness tampering, and prior conduct of the accused. (Paras 9, 60)

(C) Speedy trial rights - The claim of delay in trial was rejected due to progress made in examining prosecution witnesses. (Paras 17, 22)

(D) Previous bail application - Subsequent applications for bail must demonstrate a change of circumstances, which was not established by the petitioner. (Paras 11, 18)

Table of Content
1. details of the bail application and allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments by petitioner and respondent. (Para 5 , 6)
3. consideration of trial progress and petitioner's right. (Para 7 , 10 , 17)
4. principles for granting bail under ndps act. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 18)
5. conclusion of petition dismissal. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 15 of 2023, dated 3.3.2023, registered at the Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a naka at Dhaman Pul, Sainj. The police intercepted the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-7535 and recovered 2.603 kilograms of charas. The police arrested the petitioner. These allegations are false. The prosecution has cited 26 witnesses, out of whom 09 have been examined. The petitioner is a taxi driver and the family's sole earner. The petitioner has been behind bars since 3.3.2023, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police had set up a Naka near Dhaman bridge on 2.3.2023 at 9.45 PM. They stopped the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-7535 at 10.15 PM. The driver identified himself as Sanju (the present petitioner). He tried to move a bag with his feet. The police became suspicious and searched the vehicle in the presence of two independent witnesses. The police recovered 2.603 kilograms of charas during the search. As per the report of analysis, the exhibit was found to be charas, having 30.14% w/w resin in it. The statements of 09 out of 26 witnesses have been recorded. The matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 20.4.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, learned Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete evidence despite the lapse of three years, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha , 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 in support of his submission.

6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and the matter is listed for recording the statements of witnesses on 20.4.2026. There is no delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also