Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Shubham Dhani - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 122 of 2026
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Jagat Pal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Bail - Intermediate quantity of contraband recovered - Successive bail applications - Previous petitions dismissed - Change in circumstances due to inordinate delay in trial - Charge sheet filed but only 5 of 21 witnesses examined after 9 months - Matter listed far ahead - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 entitles accused to bail despite seriousness of offence - Prosecution unable to ensure expeditious trial - Antecedents not absolute bar to bail on long incarceration - Principles of proportionality applied - Bail granted with stringent conditions. (Paras 14, 15, 16-25)

(B) Successive bail applications - Permissible only on substantial change in fact situation having direct impact on prior decision - Not mere cosmetic changes - Court must consider grounds of earlier rejection and record reasons for differing view - Judicial discipline requires restraint to avoid abuse of process. (Paras 8-13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in case involving recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. Prior bail applications dismissed. Another similar case where released on bail. Trial pending before Special Judge; charge sheet filed; prosecution cited 21 witnesses but only 5 examined; next date distant.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; released on bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety; conditions imposed including no witness intimidation, attendance at trial, no unnecessary adjournments, address reporting, passport surrender, mobile/social media details.

Issues: Maintainability of successive bail application requiring change in circumstances; impact of trial delay on right to personal liberty and speedy trial; relevance of prior involvement and potential to reoffend.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in trial infringes fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21; where prosecution and court fail to ensure expeditious proceedings, bail cannot be denied merely on offence gravity or antecedents; successive applications viable on material change like prolonged pre-trial detention.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner charged under ndps for possessing 6.85g heroin. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. trial delay argued as change versus reoffending risk. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. successive bail requires material change in circumstances. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. prosecution delay and substantial incarceration period noted. (Para 14 , 15)
5. inordinate trial delay violates article 21 speedy trial right. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. criminal antecedents not absolute bar post long detention. (Para 24)
7. regular bail granted with conditions and surety. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 25 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had recovered 6.850 grams of heroin from the petitioner. These allegations are false. The police have filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. The matter is pending before the learned Special Judge Shimla for the prosecution’s evidence. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom only 5 witnesses have been examined. The FIR No. 23 of 2025, dated 06.02.2025, has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station West, Shimla, in which he was released on bail. The petitioner is aged 28 years, and is the only son of his parents. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was patrolling on 2.4.2025. They found the accused going towards Lakkar Bazar at about 10.55 PM, near Snow View Parking. The petitioner went towards the parking after seeing the police. He took out something and threw it towards the left side of the road. The police became suspicious and apprehended the petitioner. He identified himself as Shubham Dhani. The police checked the article thrown by the petitioner and recovered 6.850 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. FIR No. 23/25, dated 6.2.2025, was registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Boileauganj, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner is a habitual offender, and he would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Shimla, on 31.05.2025. Statements of five witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 22.04.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner’s possession is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the Court. However, the prosecution was unable to complete the evidence, which is a change of circumstances. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would 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 was found involved in the commission of a similar offence, and he is likely to indulge in the commission of a similar off