IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2607 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of Decision:23.01.2026 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Mohar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Addl.

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 175 of 2025, dated 06.10.2025, registered in Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid FIR. The prosecution’s story is false, and no

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Moga, Punjab. He has deep roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police intercepted an HRTC Bus bearing registration No. HP64-B-9734 on 05.10.2025. The petitioner was occupying Seat No.35/36. The police became suspicious of his conduct and searched him in the presence of Subhash Chand and Priyank Sharma. The police recovered 30 grams of heroin from the petitioner’s bag. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. FIR No. 127 dated 28.08.2019 has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Mohar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Mohar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated in the present case. 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 would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 30 grams of heroin, which is a huge quantity and could not have been meant for self-consumption. The heroin is adversely affecting the younger generation, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner; 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 bears upon the issue.

8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice w