Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Kamlesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No.2119 of 2025
Decided On : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Himanshu Kapila, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail - Application for regular bail dismissed earlier - Subsequent application considered only on substantial change in circumstances - Petitioner in custody for 10 months, charged with possession of heroin - Delay in trial proceedings infringes right to speedy trial - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 8, 16, 18, 20)

(B) Right to Speedy Trial - Judicial discipline necessitates assessment of prior bail denials - No substantial change presented, yet constitutional right to speedy trial emphasized - Pre-trial detention over an extended period may justify bail irrespective of criminal antecedents. (Paras 10, 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing heroin without recovery from himself; previous bail was denied due to lack of changes in circumstances. Present situation reflects unjustified prolonged detention without trial initiation.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial infringed; bail necessary due to delay in trial proceedings.

Issues: Whether prior denials affect current bail request; implications of the right to a speedy trial on continued detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior bail application denial requires substantial change; unjustified long detention supports granting bail, upholding presumption of innocence.

Result: Petition allowed, bail granted.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail after charges for drug possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented regarding prior bail denials and trial delays. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 14)
3. judicial discipline and rights of accused emphasized. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 19)
4. fundamental right to a speedy trial necessitates bail. (Para 11 , 13 , 18)
5. bail granted with conditions as per trial delays. (Para 25 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 195/2024, dated 4.11.2024, registered at Police Station, West Boileauganj, Shimla, District Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND & PS).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2014 in the aforesaid F.I.R. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent, and he has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 04.11.2024. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr. M.P.(M) No. 79/2025 and was dismissed by this Court on 17.03.2025. The police have also filed a charge sheet, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police stopped a bus bearing registration No. HP-64A-3814 for checking on 04.11.2024. The petitioner was occupying seat No.30, and Jitender Kumar was occupying seat No.31. The petitioner had concealed a plastic bag, which was checked. It was found to contain 7.5 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin, and arrested the petitioner and Jitender Kumar. The petitioner revealed on inquiry that the heroin was purchased from Deepak for Rs. 8,000/-. The heroin was sent to FSL and was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). The FIR No.79/2024 dated 10.05.2024 has been registered against the petitioner in the police station Boileauganj for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, which is pending before the Court. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail. A charge sheet was prepared and presented before the Court on 02.01.2025, and the matter is now listed for checking of copies on 07.10.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Himanshu Kapila, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Himanshu Kapila, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The police have presented the charge sheet, but no charges have been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.11.2024, and there is no likelihood or early conclusion of the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sonu Kumar versus State of H.P., Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1216 of 2025 in support of his submission.

6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition lies only on the change in the circumstances. There is no change in the circumstances, and the present petition is not maintainable. 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. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition earlier, which was registered as Cr. M.P. (M) No.79/2025 and was dismissed on 17.03.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dis