Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 19.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:7959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CrMP(M) No.281 of 2026
Decided on: 19.03.2026
_______________________________________________________________
Vipin Basu ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...........Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate General, along with ASI
Dalip Kumar, IO, PS Paonta
Sahib, District Sirmaur, HP,
present in person.
_______________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on
behalf of petitioner Vipin Basu, who is behind bars for more
than one year and nine months, for grant of regular bail in case
FIR No.99 of 2024, dated 28.06.2024, registered at Police
Station Paonta Sahib, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur,
under Sections 20, 25, 29, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI
Dalip Kumar, IO, PS Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., has
come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close security of record/status report reveals that
on 22.04.2023, Police after having received secret information,
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2026:HHC:7959
2
apprehended vehicle bearing registration No.HP-77-9555 near
Guru Nank Service and Washing Centre, Paonta Sahib and
allegedly recovered 2.4 KGs of charas from the bag kept in afore
vehicle. Since occupants of the vehicle namely Ashish Kumar,
Manjit Singh and present bail petitioner were unable to render
plausible explanation qua possession of aforesaid quantity of
contraband, Police after completion of necessary codal
formalities, arrested all the accused named hereinabove and
since then, they are behind bars. Subsequently, on the basis of
statements given by the accused, named hereinabove, Police
arrested co-accused Pramod Kumar on the ground that he had
sent the consignment to co-accused Manjit Singh, resident of
Majra. Allegedly, petitioner further disclosed to the Police during
investigation that some quantity of contraband recovered from
vehicle in question was to be delivered to person namely Imtiaz
Hashmi @ Bura Khan. Above named Bura Khan also came to be
named in the FIR, however, he as well as co-accused Pramod
Kumar already stand enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders
dated 04.10.2024 & 29.10.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2113 of
2024 and Cr.MP(M) No.1857 of 2024. Since investigation is
complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-
petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground that co-
accused, named hereinabove, already stand enlarged on bail.
2026:HHC:7959
3
4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to
completion of investigation, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned
Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing
remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in
view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by
him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer
for grant of regular bail deserves outright rejection. He further
states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record
suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner, being one of the
occupants of car, is a part of drug racket. He states that
otherwise also, on account of recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband from the conscious possession of petitioner, he
cannot claim parity, if any, with co-accused Bura Khan and
Pramod Kumar, who stand booked under Section 29 of the
NDPS Act. While referring to the call detail reports adduced on
record, Mr. Panwar states that bail petitioner herein was
throughout in touch with the co-accused Pramod Kumar, Manjit
Singh and Bura Khan through mobile phone and as such, it
cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated. He states
that there is concrete evidence available on record, suggestive of
the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and in case he is
enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may
again indulge in such activities, as such, prayer for grant of bail
made on his behalf deserves to be rejected.
2026:HHC:7959
4
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused material available on record, this Court finds that
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the car,
being driven by co-accused Ashish Kumar, whereas present
bail petitioner was one of the occupants of the car, and as
such, he cannot claim that he has been falsely implicated,
especially when it is not in dispute that recovery was effected in
the presence of independent witnesses, however, having taken
note of the fact that main co-accused Pramod Kumar, whose
vehicle was involved in the incident, already stands enlarged on
bail, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on
behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, especially taking note of
undue delay in conclusion of trial.
6. No doubt, rigours of Section 37 of the Act are
attracted, but bare perusal of provisions contained under
Section 37 nowhere suggests that no bail can be granted in
cases involving commercial quantity, rather in such cases,
Court after affording due opportunity of hearing to public
prosecutor can proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that the
bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of
bail he/she will not indulge in such activities again. In the case
at hand, at present, there is nothing to suggest that bail-
petitioner has been falsely implicated, but at the same time,
there is nothing on record to suggest that in the event of
2026:HHC:7959
5
petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may again indulge in these
activities, especially when no case in past has been registered
against petitioner under the NDPS Act.
7. Leaving everything aside, this Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that bail-petitioner is behind bars for more than
one year and nine months and till today, prosecution has been
able to examine only four prosecution witnesses, out of 24
prosecution witnesses. Though, status report reveals that for
recording the statement of remaining witnesses, Court below
has fixed the matter for 02.04.2026, but since, it took more
than one year for prosecution to examine four witnesses, this
Court can well presume that considerable time is likely to be
consumed in conclusion of trial and in case, petitioner is left to
incarcerate for indefinite period during trial, that would amount
to pretrial conviction, which is otherwise not permissible in law.
8. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is legal
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. Delay in trial has been held to be in violation
of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of
2026:HHC:7959
6
Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, relevant para whereof has been
reproduced herein below:-
“11. This Court has consistently recognised 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), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra,
(2005) 11 SCC 569).”
9. Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate
delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for
enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v.
The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone
v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were
also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and
there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future,
subject to certain conditions.
10. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in CrMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 titled
Roop Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on
6.9.2022, also ordered for enlargement of an accused, who was
allegedly apprehended carrying commercial quantity of
Tramadol, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.
2026:HHC:7959
7
11. Apart from above judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court while granting bail vide order dated 22.3.2021 in
CrMP(M) No. 35 of 2021 titled Ajay Singh v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, also placed reliance upon a judgment
delivered by a three-Judge Bench in Cr. Appeal No. 668 of 2020
titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
decided on 12.10.2020, wherein petitioner was allegedly found
in possession of 3285 grams of charas from a vehicle, wherein
four other persons were sitting.
12. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to
substantiate his plea for enlarging the petitioner on bail, has
referred order dated 12.10.20220 passed by a 3-Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled
Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby
petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms
charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was
enlarged on bail, for having been in detention for 2 years and 7
months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to
be examined and last witness was examined in February, 2020
and, thereafter, there as no further progress in the trial.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to
judgment of a 3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court, passed on
19.7.2022 in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal
2026:HHC:7959
8
contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for
enlarging the petitioner on bail.
14. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that in Mohit Aggarwal, huge commercial quantity of
20 kilograms of Tramadol, against minimum commercial
quantity of 250 grams, was recovered, whereas, in the present
case, the recovered quantity is little more than the commercial
quantity.
15. In similar circumstances, in CrMP(M) No. 1255 of
2022, titled Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
decided on 28.7.2022, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial,
ordered enlargement on bail of the person, who was
apprehended with 1.996 kg of charas.
16. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal
Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, adversely
commented upon the approach of trial Court as well as High
Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail. In the
aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court having taken note
of the fact that appellant in that case was in jail for last four
years and Court till that date was not able to frame charges,
proceeded to enlarge accused on bail in a case registered under
the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In
2026:HHC:7959
9
no uncertain terms, Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment
held that, however serious a crime may be, an accused has right
to speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Relevant Paras of aforesaid judgment are reproduced
hereinbelow, which reads as under:
“7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having gone through the materials on record, we
are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the
appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects:
(i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four
years;
(ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even
proceed to frame charge; and
(iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as
well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than
eighty witnesses.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what
period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever
serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial
as enshrined under the Constitution of India.
9. 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.
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 & Ors. 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
2026:HHC:7959
10withheld as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at trial.”
11. The same principle has been reiterated by this Court in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in
(1980) 2 SCC 565 that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial, that 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 and that it is indisputable that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
12. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy.,
State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, this court had
declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing
criminal charges is “implicit in the broad sweep and content
of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court”. Remarking that a
valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a
procedure that is “reasonable, fair and just” it was held that:
“Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for
depriving a person of liberty cannot be “reasonable,
fair or just”unless that procedure ensures a speedy
trial for determination of the guilt of such person.
No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably
quick trial can be regarded as “reasonable, fair or
just” and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by
speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial,
is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in
Article21. The question which would, however,
arise is as to what would be the consequence if a
person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial
and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by
imprisonment as a result of along delayed trial in
violation of his fundamental right under Article
21.”
13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and
again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya &
2026:HHC:7959
11
Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1
SCC 225. In the latter the court re-emphasized the right to
speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing
prolonged trial, has no option:
“The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus,
the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the
case maybe, to proceed with the case with reasonable
promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the
large majority of accused come from poorer and
weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways
of law, where they do not often get competent legal
advice, the application of the said rule is wholly
inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused
demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one,may
be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot
disentitle an accused from complaining of
infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground
that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.”
14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)
reported in 2023INSC 311, this Court observed as under:
“21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect
that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant
of bail,may be necessary in public interest; yet, if
trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked
on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are
overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
than not, appalling. According to the Union Home
Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime
Records Bureau had recorded that as on
31stDecember 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were
lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs
in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the
rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.
22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that
inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described
by the KeralaHigh Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State
2026:HHC:7959
12reported in 1993Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical
transformation” whereby the prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is known by a number. He
loses personal possessions. He has no personal
relationships. Psychological problems result from
loss of freedom,status, possessions, dignity any
autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of
prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner
becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning
to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the
more professional the crime, more honour is paid to
the criminal”(also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison
Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has
further deleterious effects – where the accused
belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate
loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of
families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation
from society. The courts therefore,have to be sensitive
to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal,
the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure
that trials – especially in cases, where special laws
enact stringent provisions, are taken up and
concluded speedily.”
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
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
2026:HHC:7959
13
effect of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as under
: (SCC p. 722, para 17)
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory 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
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
2026:HHC:7959
14the 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 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 bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime.”
17. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena
of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent
till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance
with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused
is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent
2026:HHC:7959
15
and convincing material on record and as such, his
incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of
Fundamental Right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional
Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged
on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the
bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
18. 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 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.
19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court
Cases 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 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.
2026:HHC:7959
16
20. 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 the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
21. 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 involved, apprehension of
repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out
a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and
the 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
2026:HHC:7959
17
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.
23. 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.
24. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall
remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The
petition stands accordingly disposed of.
25. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the
order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial
court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it
may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
19th March, 2026
(Rajeev Raturi)
RAJEEV Digitally signed by
RAJEEV RATURI
RATURI Date: 2026.03.20
10:08:56 +0530