Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Shubham Chaudhary - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 77 of 2026
Decided On : 12-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr Karranveer Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General

Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rejection and antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21 - Bail - Recovery of intermediate quantity (12 grams) of contraband from vehicle - Petitioner in custody for about one year - Trial not progressed despite charge sheet filed - Previous bail application dismissed - Subsequent application - Change in circumstances due to prolonged incarceration and violation of speedy trial right under Article 21 - Further detention unjustified applying proportionality to possible sentence - Criminal antecedents not a bar - Bail granted subject to furnishing bonds and conditions. (Paras 17, 18, 29, 30)

(B) Bail - Successive applications - Maintainable only on material change in circumstances such as trial delay and incarceration period - Court must record reasons distinguishing from prior rejection. (Paras 11-16)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Speedy trial - Fundamental right - Inordinate delay entitles accused to bail even in stringent laws; State cannot oppose on ground of offence gravity if no expeditious trial possible. (Paras 19-28)

Facts of the case:
Petition for regular bail alleging false implication in recovery of contraband from driven vehicle during police interception. Custody since incident date. Prosecution version: vehicle sped away sans rear plate, contraband found post-search, confirmed as such. Prior case pending. Opposition: no change since prior bail dismissal.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed. Release on bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety subject to conditions viz. no witness intimidation, trial attendance, address reporting, passport surrender, contact details furnishing.

Issues: Maintainability of successive bail absent change in circumstances; effect of trial delay, incarceration duration and quantity on bail entitlement in stringent offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in trial and substantial incarceration relative to intermediate quantity constitute change justifying bail, overriding prior rejection and antecedents; speedy trial right paramount, further detention disproportionate.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. alleged recovery of 12g heroin from petitioner. (Para 2 , 3)
2. bail rule over jail; judicious discretion required. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. long incarceration and trial delay justify bail. (Para 5)
4. no change since prior bail dismissal. (Para 6)
5. successive bail needs material circumstances change. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. small quantity, delay warrant further detention unjust. (Para 17 , 18)
7. trial delay violates article 21 speedy trial right. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
8. antecedents not bar after long incarceration. (Para 30)
9. bail granted subject to conditions and bonds. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 43 of 2025, dated 9.3.2025, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were present on Charan Khadd, Badol. A vehicle came to the spot, and the driver increased the speed of the vehicle after seeing the police party. The police chased the vehicle and apprehended it near Shukla Nursing Home. The driver disclosed his name as Shubham Chaudhary (present petitioner). The police recovered 12 grams of heroin after searching the vehicle. These allegations are false. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 9.3.2025. The prosecution has failed to complete the trial, which violates the right to a speedy trial. Hence, it is 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 were on patrolling duty on 09.03.2025. A vehicle crossed the police vehicle at Charanpul. The driver sped his vehicle after seeking the vehicle. The police became suspicious. The vehicle did not have a number plate on the rear. The police followed the vehicle and intercepted it at a distance of 200 meters from Shukla Nursing Home. Sonu and Rajinder Singh were associated as independent witnesses. The driver identified himself as Shubham Chaudhary (present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle and found a transparent polythene packet containing beige and white granulated powder. The police checked it and found it to be heroin. It was weighed, and its weight was found to be twelve grams. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to SFSL, Junga, and, as per the report of analysis, it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). F.I.R. No. 100 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 is pending against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Karanveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution’s story is inherently improbable. The petitioner has remained behind bars for about one year, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose shall be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is any change