Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 30.4.2026 vs State Of Hp on 7 May, 2026
2026:HHC:15097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 655 of 2026
Reserved on: 30.4.2026
Date of Decision: 7.5.2026.
Vijender .... Petitioner
Versus
State of HP .... Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr K.S. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by ASI Sukhvinder
Singh, IO, PS Sadar, Bilaspur,
HP.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking
regular bail in FIR No. 257 of 2023, dated 8.11.2023, registered at
Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP, for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2026:HHC:15097
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
police had set up a naka on 8.11.2023, at 1:15 PM, near Mandi
Bharari towards Swarghat for checking the vehicles. The police
stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-11C-929. The
occupants of the vehicle appeared to be frightened, and the police
joined Roop Lal as an independent witness. The driver identified
himself as Pradeep Kumar. The person sitting in the front seat
revealed his names as Nittu, and the persons sitting in the rear
seat revealed their name as Satish and Vijender (the petitioner).
The police recovered 3.670 kg of charas from the vehicle. The
police completed the formalities and arrested the occupants. The
petitioner is currently lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan. The
matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 18.5.2026 for
recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution has failed to ensure a speedy trial, and the petitioner
is entitled to bail on this consideration. The petitioner had earlier
filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr. MP(M) No. 2325
of 2025 and was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.2026. FIR No. 279
of 2014 and FIR No.199 of 2018 were registered against the
petitioner. FIR No. 279 of 2014 is pending, and the petitioner was
acquitted in FIR No. 199 of 2018. Hence, the present petition.
3
2026:HHC:15097
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police had set up a nakka at Patta Four Lane on
8.11.2023. They stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-
11C-9294 at 1.45 PM. The police asked the driver to produce the
documents of the vehicle. The driver and other occupants
appeared to be frightened. The police associated Roop Lal and
enquired about the names of the occupants of the vehicle. The
driver identified himself as Pradeep Kumar. The person sitting in
the front seat revealed his name as Nittu, and the person sitting
in the rear seat revealed their name as Satish and Vijender (the
petitioner). The police searched the vehicle and recovered 3.670
kilograms of cannabis. The police seized the cannabis and
arrested the occupants of the vehicle. As per the result of the
analysis, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of
charas. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on
04.05.2024. 10 witnesses out of 17 witnesses cited by the
prosecution, have been examined. No other case has been
registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in
the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail.
Hence, the status report.
4
2026:HHC:15097
4. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has released the co-
accused Nittu on bail in SLP (Crl.) No. 1404 of 2026, decided on
2.4.2026. This Court has also released the co-accused Satish on
bail in Cr.MP(M) No. 573 of 2026, decided on 29.4.2026. The
petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The
petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by the Court. 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 petitioner
has criminal antecedents and he is likely to indulge in the
commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail.
Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given a considerable thought to the
submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records
carefully.
5
2026:HHC:15097
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. InGudikantiNarasimhulu 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
would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant
jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being.
[Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England”
(Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 —
Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who
is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record,
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to
commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to
habituals, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of
society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the
6
2026:HHC:15097
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
with an application seeking bail. The same may be
extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner.
While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing
of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public or State and similar other considerations. It has also
to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail
the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic
itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the
accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce
prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis
supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion
in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In
highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of
course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order
for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
7
2026:HHC:15097
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case
to case. While the placement of the accused in society,
though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding
factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should
always be coupled with other circumstances warranting
the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the
basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more
heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection
of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual
matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is
established that a court considering a bail application
cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and
an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the
court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons
justifying the grant of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of
mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with
regard to the circumstances under which an order
granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors
which ought to have guided the Court’s decision to grant
bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
8
2026:HHC:15097
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of
application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise
of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the
accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order
(Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856
and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused,
observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022)
4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)
“35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight
of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused
and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly,
when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or
vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material
brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima
facie conclusion. While considering an application for the
grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported
by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to
9
2026:HHC:15097the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due
consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the
nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if
any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a
conviction vis-Ã -vis the offence(s) alleged against an
accused.” (emphasis supplied)
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC
261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the
gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests
otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not
jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or
creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences
or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner
who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not
intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely
to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and
must weigh with us when considering the question of jail.
So also, the heinousness of the crime….”
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the
petitioner was occupying the vehicle with the co-accused Nittu,
who was released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the
ground that he had suffered incarceration since 13.11.2023, and
10
2026:HHC:15097
the trial was nowhere near conclusion. The petitioner was
arrested on 8.11.2023 as per the status report. If the co-accused
arrested on 13.11.2023 was held entitled to bail because of the
delay in the progress of the trial, the petitioner would also be
entitled to bail on a similar ground on the principle of parity.
12. The submissions made on behalf of the State that the
petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of
charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the
present case will not help the State because the petitioner is
seeking bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial. It
was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 166: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352,
that the grant of bail on the ground of delay in the progress of
trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the co-
accused, and the bail cannot be denied to the petitioner on the
ground that he has not satisfied the twin conditions. This would
violate the principle of parity in the present case.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed in Nittu
(supra) that he is to be released on bail subject to the terms and
11
2026:HHC:15097
conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. Since
the bail is being granted to the petitioner on the principle of
parity; therefore, similar conditions are to be imposed by the
learned Trial Court on the petitioner as well.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the
conditions as the learned Trial Court may deem fit to impose in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of
this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail,
Nahan, HP and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
16. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
7th May, 2026
(Chander)
Digitally signed
by CHANDER
CHANDER SHEKHAR
SHEKHAR Date: 2026.05.07
13:07:24 +0530
