Himachal Pradesh High Court
Noop Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:27026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP(M) No.999 of 2026
Decided on: 07.07.2026
.
_______________________________________________________________
Noop Ram ………..Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ………..Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes.
of
For the Petitioner : Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan
and Ms. Preeti, Advocates.
For the Respondent rt :
Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan
& Mr. Anish Banshtu, DeputyAdvocates General,
_______________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Bail petitioner, namely Noop Ram, aged 77 years,
who is behind the bars since 24.02.2024, has approached this
Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in
case FIR No.32 of 2024, dated 24.02.2024, under Section 20 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ( for short
‘Act’), registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh. Respondent/State has filed status report
and HC Ashok Kumar No.44, Police Station, Banjar, District
Kullu, Himachal Pradesh has come present alongwith the
record. Record perused and returned.
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:27026
2. Close security of record/status report reveals that
on 24.02.2024, at about 12.10 AM, police, after having noticed
.
suspicious conduct of one person walking on foot near, Bathad,
asked him to stop, but he got perplexed and made an attempt to
run away. While doing so, he threw one bag on the left side of
the road. Taking note of suspicious activities of aforesaid
of
person, police, after having associated independent witnesses,
deemed it necessary to conduct personal search of the person
rt
as well as the bag thrown by him and allegedly recovered 5Kg 5
grams of charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to
be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial
quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary
codal formalities, lodged the FIR and since then bail petitioner is
behind the bars. Prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner
approached learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh by way of Bail Application No.100 of 2026,
titled Noop Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, but same
came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2026 on the
ground that petitioner-accused possessed commercial quantity
of contraband and as such, rigour of Section 37 are attracted.
Though, in afore case, it came to be pleaded at the behest of the
petitioner herein that as per Revised Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs),
petitioner, who is 77 years old, is required to be released, but
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:27026
careful perusal of order dated 06.05.2026, passed by learned
Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh
.
reveals that such prayer of the petitioner was turned down on
the ground that recommendation of under Trial Review
Committees cannot be a ground for a bail. In afore background,
petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings
of
for grant of regular bail.
3. Mr. V.S.Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate duly
rt
assisted by Mr. Arsh Chauhan and Ms. Preeti, learned counsel
representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that though it is
yet to be established on record by the prosecution that
petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of
contraband, but even otherwise, he is entitled to bail as per
Revised Standard Operating Procedure for under Trial Review
Committees, which clearly provides that person of more than
70 years of age can be enlarged on bail even in the case
registered under NDPS Act. He also argued that otherwise also,
petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years, but till
date, prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial and as
such, his prayer for grant of bail also deserves to be considered
on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.
4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to
filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan
Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that having
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:27026
taken note of the fact that petitioner was found in possession of
commercial quantity of contraband, he does not deserve any
.
leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced
on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug
peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may
not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such
of
activities. He states that since 7 witnesses, out of 12
prosecution witnesses, already stand examined and Court below
rt
has fixed the date for recording the statements of remaining
witnesses on 29th & 30th August, 2026, prayer made on behalf
of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate
delay in conclusion of trial cannot be accepted. He also
supported the findings given by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh that recommendation of under Trial Review
Committees is not applicable in the cases registered NDPS Act.
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, because material
adduced on record by the prosecution, clearly reveals that
commercial quantity of contraband from the conscious
possession of the petitioner was recovered in the presence of
independent witnesses. Similarly, this Court finds that prayer
for enlargement of petitioner on bail on the ground of inordinate
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:27026
delay in conclusion of trial is not tenable for the reason that
prosecution has already examined seven witnesses, out of 12
.
prosecution witnesses and for recording the statements of the
remaining witnesses, learned Court below has already fixed the
matter on 29th & 30th August, 2026. However, having taken note
of Revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Under Trial
of
Review Committees (UTRGs), framed by National Legal Services
Authority in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
WP(C) 406/2013-In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons,
rt
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, who is 77 years old, for
enlargement on bail deserves to be considered.
6. As per aforesaid SOP, Office of Secretary, DLSA
with the aid of empanelled panel lawyers, Retired Judicial
Officer and law students trained as PLVs, if required and
available, shall draw list of UTPs/Convicts eligible for
consideration by the UTRC out of Data sent to him by Jail
Superintendent of every jail in District and thereafter
UTPS/Convicts falling under the categories as prescribed in
Clause 2.2. of Step-II, shall be placed before Under Trial Review
Committees, which reads as under:-
STEP 2: Processing of Data by Secretary, DLSA
2.1 The office of Secretary, DLSA, with the aid of
empaneled panel lawyers, Retired Judicial Officers and
law students trained as PLVs, if required and available,
shall draw list of UTPs/Convicts eligible for
consideration by the UTRC out of Data sent to him
from Step-I in the light of criteria laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in WP(C) 406/2013-Re-Inhuman::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:27026Conditions in 1382 Prisons, as per detailed hereunder
(Para 2.2).
If any further details are required by the Secretary,
DLSA from any court or from the Jail Superintendent
.
or from the police authorities, the same may be
ascertained by the Secretary DLSA. Thereafter, the
Secretary DLSA shall prepare a list of eligible UTPs for
consideration of UTRC in the Excel Sheet/Soft form as
per Annexure A & B.
2.2 Cases of UTPs / Convicts falling under following
categories shall be considered by the Secretary, DLSA
for placing them before the UTRC:-
2.2.1 UTPs eligible under Section 436A Cr.P.C./479
of
BNSS [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
24th April, 2015]2.2.2 UTPs who are first time offenders and have
completed one-third of their sentence, and eligible as
rt
per Section 479 BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 19th November, 2024]
2.2.3 UTPs granted bail by the court, but have notbeen able to furnish sureties. [As per order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2015]
2.2.4 UTPs accused of compoundable offences. [As per
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24th April, 2015]
2.2.5 UTPs eligible under Section 436 of Cr.P.C/478BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
05th February, 2016]
2.2.6 UTPs who may be covered under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, or Section 360 CrPC/401BNSS and can be released on probation of good
conduct or on admonition. [As per order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 05th February, 2016]2.2.7 Convicts who have undergone their sentence, or
are entitled to be considered for pre mature release, or
are entitled to release pursuant to remission alreadygranted to them. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 05th February, 2016]
2.2.8 UTPs become eligible to be released on bail on
Section167(2)(a)(i) & under (ii) CrPC/Section 187 (3) (â…°)
& (ii) BNSS, read with Section 36A of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, persons
accused 1985 of (where Section 19/24/27A or for
offences involving commercial quantity) and where
investigation is not completed in 60/90/180 days, as
the case may be. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.9 UTPs who are imprisoned for offences which carry
a maximum punishment of 2 years. [As per order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.10 Persons detained under Chapter VIII of the
Cr.P.C. i.e. u/s 107, 108, 109 and 151 of Cr.P.C/::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:27026Sections 126, 127, 128 and 170 of the BNSS. [As per
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.11 UTPs who are sick or infirm including terminally
ill, who require specialized medical treatment. [As per.
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.12 Women UTPs.
[As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06th
May, 2016]
2.2.13 UTPs who are first time offenders between the
ages 18 and 21 years and in custody for the offence
punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment and
have undergone at least 1/4th of the maximum
sentence possible. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme
of
Court dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.14 UTPs who are of unsound mind and are to be
dealt with as per Chapter XXV CrPC/Chapter XXVII of
the BNSS. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court
rt
dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.15 UTPs eligible for release under Section 437(6) of
Cr.P.C/Section 480(6) of the BNSS wherein in a case
triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of
any non-bailable offence has not been concluded within
a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case. [As per order of Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 06th May, 2016]
2.2.16 UTPs who are and above the age of 70 years.
2.3 The DLSA Secretary must inform the District &
Sessions Judge that the complete list has been
prepared and request him to convene the UTRC
meeting at the earliest. A copy of the list may also be
shared with other members of the UTRC so that they
can come prepared for the meeting.
STEP 3: Processing of identified cases by UTRC 3.1
The District & Sessions Judge shall convene the UTRC
meeting as soon as the intimation is received from the
DLSA, Secretary about the completion of the lists.
3.2 UTRC shall consider the cases shortlisted by the
Secretary, DLSA and make recommendations for
release/ appropriate action.
3.3 Upon processing the individual cases, the
recommendations of UTRC may include:-
3.3.1 In case UTPs covered under Section 436A
Cr.P.C/479 BNSS.: UTRC may recommend to
concerned trial court to take up the matter and
consider him/her for release on bail if there are no
special reasons to deny bail, with or without sureties.
3.3.2 UTPs released on bail by the court, but have not
been able to furnish sureties: The UTRC may
recommend the trial court to examine the reason why
the accused is not furnishing surety/ bail bonds and if
he/she is unable to do so due to poverty, then the trial
court may consider reducing the bail amount on the::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:27026application of the lawyer under S.440, CrPC/484 BNSS
or release on personal bond.
3.3.3 UTPs accused of compoundable offences: The
UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider if.
the offence can be compounded between the
complainant and the accused as per law.
3.3.4 UTPs eligible under Section 436 of Cr.P.C./478
BNSS: The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to
consider releasing such an accused on personal bond
in case he is unable to furnish bail bond within seven
days of bail order.
3.3.5 UTPs who may be covered under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, namely accused of offence
of
under Sections 379, 380, 381, 404, 420 IPC/303(2),
305, 306, 315, 318(4) BNS or alleged to be an offence
not more than 2 years imprisonment: The UTRC may
recommend to the trial court to consider invoking of
Probation of Offenders Act in fit cases as also plea
rt
bargaining in appropriate cases.
3.3.6 Convicts who have undergone their sentence or
are entitled to release because of remission granted to
them: The UTRC may examine the reason for non-
release of the convict and the Officer in-charge of
prison may be recommended to look into the matter so
that the convict is released as soon as possible.
3.3.7 UTPs become eligible to be released on bail
under Section 167(2)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Code/ 187 (3) (i)
& (ii) read with Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (where persons
accused of Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or
for offences involving commercial quantity) and where
investigation is not completed in 60/90/180 days: The
UTRC may recommend to the trial court to consider
release of the accused in cases where chargesheet is
not submitted within the statutory time frame.
3.3.8 UTPs who are imprisoned for offences which
carry a maximum punishment of 2 years:
The UTRC may recommend to the trial court to
consider releasing of the UTP on bail in such cases.
3.3.9 UTPs who are detained under Chapter VIII of the
Cr.P.C. i.e. under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 151 of
Cr.P.C./126, 127, 128 and 170 of BNSS: The Executive
Magistrate/ District Magistrate court may be
recommended to release/discharge such persons with
or without conditions or to make an order reducing the
amount of the security or the number of sureties or the
time for which security has been required.
3.3.10 UTPs who are sick or infirm and require
specialized medical treatment: The UTRC may examine
the medical condition of the inmate and if it is found
that the inmate is very sick and specialized treatment is
essential for survival, then the UTRC may recommend
the trial court to consider granting bail on medical::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:27026ground, as provided under S.437, CrPC/480 BNSS,
even for temporary period.
3.3.11 UTPs women offenders: Women under trial
prisoners who are not accused of serious offences may.
be considered for release on bail under S.437,
CrPC/480 BNSS, especially they are first time offenders
by the concerned trial courts. The UTRC may also
recommend suitable measures under the directions of
the Hon’ble Court in R. D. Upadhyay vs State of A.P. &
Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 1946).
3.3.12 UTPs who are first time offenders between the
ages 19 and 21 years and in custody for the offence
punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment and
of
have suffered at least 1/4th of the maximum sentence
possible: The UTRC may request the trial court to
consider granting bail to such young offenders. If the
person is found guilty in the course of trial, benefit of
S.3 or S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, may
rt
be given to the accused.
3.3.13 UTPs who are of unsound mind and must be
dealt with Chapter XXV of the Code/ Chapter XXVII of
the BNSS: UTRC may recommend the trial court to take
appropriate steps in accordance with Chapter XXV of
the Code/ Chapter XXVII of the BNSS and provide
adequate treatment to such inmates.
3.3.14 UTPs eligible for release under Section 437(6) of
Cr.P.C./ 480 (6) BNSS, wherein in a case triable by a
Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-
bailable offence has not been concluded within a period
of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence
in the case: UTRC may request the trial court to
consider granting bail to such UTPs under Section
437(6) of Cr.P.C./ 480 (6) BNSS
3.4 The UTRC shall enter its recommendation in
column no. 21-23 of Annexure-A and column no.15-17
of Annexure-B.
3.4.1 Recommendation of UTRC
3.4.2 Date of recommendation
3.4.2 Brief reasons for UTRC recommendation
3.5 The UTRC shall share recommendations with the
concerned Trial Court/Jail Superintendent and
Secretary, DLSA. Jail Superintendent shall bring it to
the notice of UTP/Convict. Secretary, DLSA shall
instruct the panel lawyers to move appropriate
application in legal aided cases. The Trial Courts may
deal with the recommendations in the manner deemed
appropriate for each particular case with the assistance
of Legal Aid/Private Lawyer.”
7. After receipt of complete information, DLSA shall
inform District and Sessions Judge to convene UTRCs meeting
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:27026
at the earliest, whereafter under Step-3 of SOP, District and
Sessions Judge shall convene the UTRC meeting and consider
.
the cases shortlisted by the Secretary, DLSA and make
recommendations for release/appropriate action. Clause 3.3.7
of Step-3 clearly provides that UTPs become eligible to be
released on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Code/
of
187(3)(i)(ii) read with Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (where persons accused of
rt
Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving
commercial quantity) and where investigation is not completed
in 60/90/180 days, the UTRC may recommend to the trial court
to consider release of the accused in cases where charge sheet
is not submitted within the statutory time frame.
8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, vide
communication dated 17th April 2016, Secretary District Legal
Services Authority, Kullu informed Sh. Chuneshwar Thakur,
Advocate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh with regard
to his being appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the bail
petitioner for filing the application in the competent court of law
for his release on the basis of Under Trial Review Committees
recommendation made on 16.04.2026, wherein case of the
petitioner came to be identified in the category 2.2.16 of Step-2,
which provides that UTPS, who are above the age of 70 years,
can be recommended for consideration of bail.
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:27026
9. Though, pursuant to aforesaid instructions received
by the counsel, named hereinabove, an application was filed
.
before the learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, annexing therewith
recommendation made by Under Trial Review Committees,
thereby recommending the case of the petitioner for bail under
category 16 of Step-2, but as has been taken note hereinabove,
of
learned Special Judge-II, Kullu ignored the same and
proceeded to record that petitioner herein, who is accused of
rt
having possessed commercial quantity of contraband cannot be
granted benefit of aforesaid recommendation . However, having
carefully perused SOP framed by National Legal Services
Authority, in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court
WP(C) 406/2013-In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons,
coupled with the fact that there is a provision to recommend
the case of under trial prisoner, who has attained the age more
than 70 years, for grant of bail, coupled with the fact that
petitioner has been behind the bars for more than two years
and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in shortest
possible time, this Court is persuaded to consider the case of
the petitioner for grant of regular bail.
10. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:27026
is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent
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
of
on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the
bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated
11.
rt
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
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.
12. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:27026
reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive
nor preventative.
.
13. 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
of
whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is
probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise
rt
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.
14. 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.
15. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:27026
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 thetrial 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
of
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
rt
the Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the
prior permission of the Court.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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
July 07,2026
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:33:07 :::CIS
