IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 127 of 2026.

Reserved on: 06.03.2026.

Date of Decision: 11.03.2026.

Dharam Chand ...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 Manish, Advocate, vice Mr Vinod K. Sharma, Advocate.

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

g Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 436/2022, dated 24.11.2022, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

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

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police near Baradha Pathla bifurcation, Sub Tehsil Jari, District Kullu, on 24.11.2022 at about 3.30 P.M. Allegations against the petitioner are false. He belongs to a respectable family. He is the sole earner of the family. The petitioner has been behind bars for about 3 years. The prosecution was unable to complete the trial, which is violative of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. The buail is the rule, and jail is an exception. The independent woitnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The pCetitioner had filed the bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP (M) Nos. 1612 of 2024 and 2390 of 2025, and were dismissed on 27.09.2024 and 07.11.2025, respectively. The portion of the petitioner’s field has been washed away because of Hthe rain, and the presence of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 24.11.2022. Secret information was received at 2:20 PM that the petitioner, Dharamchand, was going to sell the charas to someone, and a huge quantity of charas could be recovered through his search. The police completed the formalities and apprehended the petitioner with the backpack. The search of the backpack was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses. 3 kg 616 grams of charas were recovered from the backpack. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. As per the report of the analysis, the substance found in the petitioner’s posseussion was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. Tohe challan has been filed before the Court on 20.02.2023. TChe prosecution has cited 18 witnesses, out of whom 15 have been examined, and 3 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 30.03.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Manish, Advocate, learned vice Mr. Vinod K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Manish Sharma, learned representing the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case, which shows the falsity of the prosecution's version. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of three years, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 1752 of 2025, titled Dayanand vs. State of H.P., decided on

22.08.2025 in support of his submission.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Ac