Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Ujjwal Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.2129 of 2025
For the Applicant: Mr. Hitansh Raj
For the Respondent: Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Rohit Sharma
Miscommunication justifies bail application; court emphasizes pre-trial punishment is prohibited and imposes conditions to ensure compliance.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application during trial - Applicant, alleged to possess narcotics, seeks bail after previous bail revoked due to non-appearance - Court considers miscommunication as a valid reason for non-appearance and grants bail with stringent conditions - Observations made do not affect merits of the case. (Paras 1, 11, 13, and 14)
(B) Bail Conditions - Conditions imposed to ensure attendance and prevent tampering with evidence were deemed necessary due to the applicant's previous history and nature of charges (Paras 15).
Facts of the case:
The applicant applied for bail, citing false implication and prior miscommunication leading to judicial custody after previously being granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no purpose served in continued judicial custody given the trial's uncertain timeline, advocating for the applicant's release on bail under strict conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant's non-appearance constituted grounds for continued custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the miscommunication justified the applicant's prior absence, and thus, release was warranted; highlighting that pre-trial punishment is not permitted.
Result: Application for bail allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant claims innocence and cites miscommunication for non-appearance. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. details of alleged crime and investigation are summarized. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. court emphasizes principles regarding bail conditions and pre-trial detention. (Para 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. court allows bail application with conditions to ensure compliance. (Para 13 , 14) |
SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2129 of 2025 Reserved on: 08.09.2025 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 Ujjwal Mehta …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the applicant : Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Jaiwanti, Police Station, Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P.
Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Ujjwal, has filed the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.242 of 2019, dated 17.11.2019, registered under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station, Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case for allegedly possessing
29.72 grams of heroine/chitta.
3. The applicant was earlier released on bail by this Court on 06.12.2019. However, on 19.06.2025, due to miscommunication of the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, as such, Non Bailable warrants were issued for 01.08.2025. On that day he had surrender himself to the custody of Court (trial Court) and he was sent to judicial custody. 4. Thereafter he has applied for bail before the learned trial Court i.e. learned Special Judge-III, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, however, his bail application has been dismissed on
25.08.2025.
5. The applicant has put forward miscommunication to be the reason for his non-appearance on 19.06.2025, before the learned trial Court.
6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
8. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 17.11.2019, IO Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar, SIU Solan had submitted a rukka to Police Station Sadar Solan, disclosing therein that on 16.11.2019 he along with other police officials, was on patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime towards Solan side. At about 11:50 PM, when he was present at Saproon Chowk, then he received a secret information that a Vehicle No.HP06A-6148 being driven by its driver coming from Chandigarh and four persons are there in the said vehicle and they are carrying the heroine/chitta by concealing the same in the dashboard of the vehicle.
8.1. As per the information, if the said vehicle is intercepted and searched then, a large quantity of heroine/chitta could be recovered. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable and as such, he has prepared the information under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, and submitted the same to the Supervising Officer. Thereafter he has proceeded towards Rabon bye pass side. At about 12:15 AM, he was present and put the picketing near Tapan Motors and started checking the vehicles coming from Kumarhatti side.
8.2. Meanwhile, at about 12:24 AM (midnight), he noticed a Car bearing No.HP06A-6148, being driven by its driver, coming from Kumarhatti side. The said vehicle was stopped and four persons were found to be sitting in the vehicle. Prior to se
