17.3.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 17.3.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2026

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                                     2026:HHC:7509




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                                                  Cr. MP (M) No.333 of 2026
                                                                 Date of Decision: 17.3.2026




                                                                              .
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





     Bachan Singh                                                                     ...Petitioner
                                                 Versus
     State of Himachal Pradesh                                                    ...Respondent
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





     Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                 of
     For the Petitioner:                          Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate.
     For the Respondent:                           Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
                                                   Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
                                                   Additional Advocates General with Mr.
                    rt                             Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
                                                   General.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner namely Bachan Singh, who is behind

bars since 25.10.2023, has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR

No.148 of 2023, dated 25.10.2023, under Sections 20 and 29 of

ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station Nadaun, District

Hamirpur, H.P.

2. Pursuant to order dated 10.3.2026, respondent-State

has filed the status report and ASI Puran Bhagat Singh, has come

present with record. Record perused and returned.

1

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS

2026:HHC:7509
2

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available

to this Court reveals that on 25.10.2023 at 04:30 a.m., police party

.

present near link road Gona Dhaneta received a secret information

that charas is being transported in car bearing registration

No. HP-22-C-7473, which is being driven by co-accused Ashok

Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid secret information, Police

of
stopped vehicle detailed hereinabove, which at relevant time was

coming from Hamirpur side, for checking. Since occupants of the

car including the bail-petitioner got perplexed and started making
rt
excuses, Police conducted search of the vehicle as well as

persons present on the spot and accordingly, after having

associated independent witnesses, effected search of the

occupants of the car and allegedly recovered 1.491 grams of

charas from a bag kept in the dicky of the vehicle. Since, no

plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua

possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having

completed all codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove

and arrested both the occupants of the car and since then bail

petitioner is behind the bars, whereas co-accused Ashok Kumar

stands enlarged on bail. Since challan stands filed in the

competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from

the bail-petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
3

instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on account of

inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

.

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the

challan in the competent court of law, states that keeping in view

the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the

of
petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that

as per statements of the independent witnesses adduced on

record, presence of the bail petitioner on the spot is not denied. If it
rt
is so, he is otherwise answerable for carrying/transporting huge

quantity of contraband in the vehicle. He states that this Court,

taking note of quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle,

can well infer that petitioner is a part of drug peddling racket and in

the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from

justice, but may again indulge in these activities. He further states

that since prosecution evidence has already commenced, prayer

made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on account of

inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, deserves outright rejection.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded

to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has

been falsely implicated. It is not in dispute that at the time of

recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, petitioner herein

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
4

was one of the occupants of the car and recovery was effected in

the presence of independent witnesses, however having taken

.

note of the fact that bail-petitioner is behind bars for more than two

and half years coupled with the fact that co-accused Ashok Kumar,

who was allegedly driving the vehicle, already stands enlarged on

bail vide order dated 9.10.2025, this Court is persuaded to

of
consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail

on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Till date,

prosecution has been able to examine only 15 witnesses out of 39
rt
witnesses, this Court has reason to presume and believe that

considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial

and if, petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail during trial, it would not

only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also violate the

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is

fundamental right of the accused and one cannot be made to

suffer indefinitely for delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no

reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite

period during trial. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia

Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held

delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an

accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para

of the afore judgment reads as under:-

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS

2026:HHC:7509
5

“11. This Court has consistently recognized the right of the
accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held
to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused

.

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme

Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC
731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC

616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released

on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period
of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial
at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),

of
(1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005)
11 SCC 569).

7. rt The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Javed Gulam

Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, passed in

Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, having

taken note of its various judgments passed in the past, proceeded

to conclude that if the State or any prosecuting agency including

the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the

fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or

any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail

on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Most

importantly, in the afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held

that Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature

of the crime. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:

“15. The requirement of law as being envisaged under
Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
(hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
6

the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be
held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have
precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts

.

are to be designated for such an offence by the Central

Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High
Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.

16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v.

K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713] had an occasion to
consider the long incarceration and at the same time the effect
of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as under :

of
(SCC p. 722, para 17)

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
rt
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not
oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,both

the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings,the

courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down
where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a

reasonable time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed

sentence. Such an approach would safe-guard against the
possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being
used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach

of constitutional right to speedy trial.”

17. In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51,
prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the
attention of the court, which considered the correct approach
towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including
Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that
Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
7

enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified
periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973would apply:

.

“We do not wish to deal with individual

enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it,
followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing
delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the

provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to
the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision.
For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the

of
NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are
dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the
rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these
rt
types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and
there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial.
Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this

Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of
Section 309 of the Code.”

18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in
everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when

dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint
has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is

committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the
offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and
economic, maybe, the result of value erosion or parental

neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the
manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted
with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or
any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
8

bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21
of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

.

20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused;

not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until
proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever

stringent the penal law may be.

21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting
agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the

of
accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been
infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v.

rt
Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, while

placing reliance upon its earlier judgments rendered in number of

cases, especially Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), again

reiterated that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an

accused and infraction thereof amounts to violation of Arctile 21 of

the Constitution of India. Relevant paras of the judgment passed

in Manish Sisodia case read as under:

“50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the
right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights,

the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due
weightage to this factor.

51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an
application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v.
State of Maharashtra wherein the accused was prosecuted
under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment
of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Gurbaksh Singh

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
9

Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The

.

Court observed thus:

“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or
any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for
bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21

of
of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime.”

52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in
rt
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:

“10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and

the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:

“What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the
object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or
disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898)

18 Cox]:

“I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It

cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the
country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that

the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance
of the prisoner at trial.”

53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the
trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-
settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears
that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in
matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
10

account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail
petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time

.

that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the

principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.

54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI

matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves
thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of
digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the

of
remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near
future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an
unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial

rt would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged
incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence

should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.”

9. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024

SCC OnLine SC 1945, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing

with a case registered under Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, enlarged the accused

on bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

Relevant para of the afore judgment is reproduced herein below:

“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here
that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the
material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was
more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s case
could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for
a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in
granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very
serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
11

grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail
is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present
case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in

.

the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only

modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the
statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is
made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant

bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be
a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our
Constitution.”

of

10. Reliance is also placed upon latest judgment dated

28.8.2024, passed in Prem Prakash v. Union of India through
rt
The Directorate of Enforcement, (Petition for Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024), wherein having taken note of the

inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, Hon’ble Apex Court

proceeded to enlarge the accused on bail. Relevant para of the

aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“12. Independently and as has been emphatically reiterated in

Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on Ramkripal Meena Vs

Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024
dated 30.07.2024) and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC online 1693, where the

accused has already been in custody for a considerable number
of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial
within a short span, the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA can be
suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty. Further, Manish
Sisodia (II) (supra) reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi
Sheikh (Supra), that keeping persons behind the bars for
unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy completion of
trial would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article
21 of the Constitution of India and that prolonged incarceration

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
12

before being pronounced guilty ought not to be permitted to
become the punishment without trial. In fact, Manish Sisodia
(II) (Supra) reiterated the holding in Manish Sisodia (I) Vs.

.

Directorate of Enforcement (judgment dated 30.10.2023 in

Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2023) where it was held as under:-

“28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an
offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial

gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is
clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the
prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may

of
pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to
equate these cases with those punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the
rtNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder,
cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence,

etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have
been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and
proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with
incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the

allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and
Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional
mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person

charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured
and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for

reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there
are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to

grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years.”

It is in this background that Section 45 of PMLA needs to be
understood and applied. Article 21 being a higher constitutional
right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said
higher constitutional edict.”

11. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court having

taken note of all judgments passed in recent times, categorically

held that bail is rule and jail is an exception. If all the judgments

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
13

taken note herein above are read in conjunction, Hon’ble Apex

Court has categorically held that court while considering prayer for

.

grant of bail may not be impressed with the arguments advanced

by the prosecution that charge against the person seeking bail is

serious, but in case, Court finds that on account of inordinate delay

in conclusion of trial, fundamental right of speedy trial is being

of
violated, it should proceed to grant bail. No doubt, in the case at

hand, charge against the petitioner is serious, but there is no

denial to the fact that bail petitioner is languishing in jail for more
rt
than two years without being held guilty.

12. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the

attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be

applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be

granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will

appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a

punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail.

Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of

evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which

conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances

which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,

Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on

6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
14

for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be

proved. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

.

aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until

found guilty.

14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus

Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases

of
49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny

bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the

court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by
rt
the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable

amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventative.

15. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI,

(2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the object of

the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and

the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether

bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the

party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of

bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind

nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof,

severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS
2026:HHC:7509
15

the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused

involved in that crime.

.

16. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus

Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down

various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail

viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment

of
involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses

being influenced.

17. rt In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail-petitioner has carved out a

case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the

bail-petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR,

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of

concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following

conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of
interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial

Court on each and every date of hearing and if
prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from
appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor
hamper the investigation of the case in any manner
whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.

(e) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the
investigating agency.

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS

2026:HHC:7509
16

18. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or

.

violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating

agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

19. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be

construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall

of
remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The

petition stands accordingly disposed of.

20. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by
rt
the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the

petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity

of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be

ascertained from the official website of this Court.

(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge

March 17, 2026
Manjit

::: Downloaded on – 18/03/2026 20:31:14 :::CIS