IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2808 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.01.2026 Date of Decision: 9.01.2026.

_____________________________________ Mohit ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail, in FIR No. 237 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20,25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) at Police Station Sundernagar District Mandi, H.P.

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

2. It has been asserted that, as per prosecution, the petitioner was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 72A-1340, from which the 329 grams of charas was recovered. The petitioner is innocent. There is no material to connect him to the charas. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Una and there is no likelihood of his absconding. The investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all 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 were checking the vehicles at Pungh barrier on 28.10.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-72A-1340. The occupants of the vehicle got frightened after seeing the police. The police associated Dalip Kumar and Constable Kuldeep and inquired the names of the occupants of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-72A-1340. The driver identified himself Rajinder Kumar and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Mohit Kumar (present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle in presence of the witnesses and recovered a carry bag containing 329 grams of charas. The police arrested the occupants and seized the charas. The charas was sent to SFSL Junga and it was found to be a sample of charas. As per the status report, no F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The quantity of charas stated to have been recovered is intermediate and rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the quantity of charas found from the car was huge and it could not have been meant for self consumption. The charas adversely affects the young 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 record 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, w