Himachal Pradesh High Court
Damini vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
( 2026:HHC:9111 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 2582 of 2025
Reserved on.: 20.03.2026
Announced on: 25.03.2026
.
____________________________________________________________
Damini .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr.N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate with
rt Ms. Swetima Dogra and Mr. Sidharth,
Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional
-State Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Bail petitioner [Ms. Damini], being in custody
since 29.05.2025 has come up before this Court,
seeking bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS)
originating from FIR No. 33 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025,
registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra
[H.P.], under Section 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-2- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as
the NDPS Act).
FACTUAL MATRIX
.
2. Case set up by Mr. N.S.Chandel, Senior
Advocate is that on 05.02.2025 a police party head
by ASI Satender Singh received a secret information at
about 10.25 a.m that two persons, namely, Raj Kumar
of
and Roop Lal were sitting in a vehicle parked near
Government Hospital, Nurpur on Defence Road behind
rt
the Ekant Hotel near Shiv temple. On receipt of this
information, the Investigating Officer sent information
under Section 42(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act to SDPO, Nurpur, through Constable
Lekh Raj. The Investigating Officer associated independent
witnesses Khushal Singh and Ajay Kumar and reached
the spot and found the vehicle being registration No.
HP-01K-5700 parked near Kali Mata Mandir and found
Roop Lal and Raj Kumar sitting in the vehicle. On search of
vehicle, six packets wrapped with tape hidden inside the
cover of the rear door of the vehicle was found containing
stick and round shaped solid substance i.e. Charas and
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-3- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
the contraband was weighed and was found to be 2 Kgs. 950
grams. After completing codal formalities, Rukka was
sent to Police Station, leading to registration of FIR No.
.
33 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025 [Annexure P-1] at Police
Station Nurpur, District Kangra against the aforesaid
namely, Roop Lal and Raj Kumar. During investigation,
the aforesaid accused disclosed that they were to deliver
of
the contraband to the bail petitioner [Damini], for which
the bail petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/-
rt
as advance in the bank account of the wife of accused
Roop Lal.
2(i). It is further averred that the petitioner had filed
an application for bail Cr.MP(M) No.238 of 2025 and the
same was withdrawn on 11.02.2025 [Annexure P-2].
Bail application filed second bail application before Ld.
Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.02.2025,
which was dismissed on 10.03.2025 [Annexure P-3] and
the third bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 910 of 2025,
before this Court and the same was dismissed as
withdrawn on 02.05.2025 [Annexure P-4]. It is averred
that the fourth bail application was filed before Learned
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-4- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.06.2025
and the same was dismissed on 24.06.2026 [Annexure P-5].
2(ii). The bail-petitioner has averred that she
.
has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence
to connect the petitioner with the accusation. It is
averred that no recovery has been affected from the
petitioner so far it relates to the accusation in the
of
instant case. It is averred that the petitioner has participated
in the investigation and investigation is complete and the
police has
rt presented the Challan-Final Police Report
dated 29.07.2025 before concerned Court. Petitioner
has furnished an undertaking that she will abide by
the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this
Court. Bail petitioner has averred that she shall not
cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person
or persons acquainted with the facts of the case and
shall not flee away from investigation and trial. It
is averred that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal
as the grounds of arrest have not been furnished by
Investigating Officer before arrest. It is averred that
personal liberty of petitioner under Article 21 of the
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-5- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Constitution of India could neither be curtailed or taken
away by presuming the guilt at this stage against the
petitioner. Instant petition has been filed through her
.
cousin Sahil, with the prayer for releasing the petitioner
[Damini] on bail.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court on
of
31.10.2025, the State Authorities have filed the Status
Report dated 13.11.2025 and Fresh Status Report dated
rt
08.01.2026 in the Court on 09.01.2026; when at the
request of Learned Counsel for petitioner, the matter was
adjourned and it was finally heard on 20.03.2026.
3(i) Perusal of the Status Report(s) reveal that
during interrogation, the main accused, namely, Roop Lal
disclosed to police that the alleged contraband i.e. Charas
was to be delivered to bail petitioner [Damini] at Damtal-
Mohatti and Damini had remitted an amount of Rs. 20,000/-
through UPI as advance, in the account of Radha wife
of accused Roop Lal. Status Report(s) indicate that the
bail petitioner has criminal antecedents, as F.I.R No. 68
of 2023 dated 28.04.2023 under Section 20 and 29 of
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-6- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
the NDPS Act has been registered against her in Police
Station Damtal. In the above background, the State
Authorities have opposed the bail application.
.
4. Heard, Mr. N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Swetima Dogra and Mr. Sidharth, Advocates, for
petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate
General for Respondent(s).
of
MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL IN GENERAL:
5. In general, the broad parameters regulating
rt
the claim for bail have been spelt out in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus
Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496;
reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal
versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI
versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250;
which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-7- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj,
2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail is to be granted
where the allegations are frivolous or groundless
.
and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable
grounds exists to believe or point towards the
accusation. However, depending upon the facts of
each case, the bail can be refused, in case, prima
of
facie case or reasonable grounds exits and if an
offence is serious. Severity of punishment, including
rt
reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from
investigation and trial; and the character; past
antecedents; behavior; means; position and standing
of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated;
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced
and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession
of bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus
Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023
held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-8- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but
by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in
light of broad-parameters referred to above.
.
MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL IN CASE OF
COMMERCIAL QUANTITY OF CONTRABAND:
6. In NDPS cases, where the offence is
punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the
of
accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation
of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While
rt
considering the application for bail, the court has to
bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The
recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a
sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved
in the offences under the said Act. Apart from the
granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor,
the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the
Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence
and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
-9- ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions
as per the mandate of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of M.P. versus Kajad, (2001)
.
7 SCC 673 and by Three Judge Bench in NCB versus
Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374 and in Narcotics
Control Bureau versus Kashif, Criminal Appeal No.
5544 of 2024, decided on 20.12.2024
of
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:
7. In
rt backdrop of the mandate of law onbail in general and matters relating to accusation
for offences under NDPS Act, involving commercial
quantity of contraband and after taking into account
entirety of facts and circumstances and the material
on record as is borne out from Status Report(s),
this Court is of the considered view, that the bail
petitioner [Damini], is entitled to enlarged on bail, for the
following reasons:-
REASONABLE GROUNDS REVEALING PETITIONER
PRIMA FACIE NOT GUILTY:
7(i). Perusal of Status Report(s) dated 13.11.2025
and dated 08.01.2026 indicates that police patrolling
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
party on receipt of secret information and after
completing codal formalities reached near the vehicle
No. HP-01K-5700 on 05.02.2025 at 11.45 A.M and
.
found two persons namely Roop Lal and Raj Kumar
sitting in the vehicle. On search, six packets containing
Charas weighing 2.950 Kgs. was recovered from these
two accused. Status Reports do not indicate that any
of
recovery of contraband-Charas was recovered from thebail petitioner, Damini. Status Reports indicate that
rt
the bail petitioner was implicated on the basis of theconfessional/disclosure statement made by main
accused, namely Roop Lal. Reference to the bank
transaction of Rs.20,000/- between the bail petitioner
and Smt. Radha, wife of main accused Roop Lal cannot
be made the basis for presuming the guilt of the bail
petitioner. Moreover, the bail petitioner had neither
travelled in the vehicle-conveyance with the main
accused nor was any contraband recovered from the
bail petitioner. Further, there is nothing on record
to establish that the bail petitioner had purchased
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
or sold the contraband therefore, this Court in facts
of instant case is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty
.
of the offence under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING
OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLEJUSTICE :
7(ii). Status Reports filed by State Authorities
of
have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstancesnor placed
rt on record any cogent and convincingmaterial on record to infer that after release on
bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause
of justice in any manner. In absence of any material,
the plea for bail, deserves to be granted to the
petitioner in the instant case.
In view of above discussion and in facts of
instant case, the accusation under Section 37(1)(b) is not
made out against the bail petitioner, at this stage.
PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SECTIONS 21-25-
29 IMPERMISSIBLE:
8. So far as the accusation under Section 21
of NDPS Act is concerned in the absence of any
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 12 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
cogent material in the Status Report(s) pointing
out that the bail petitioner had either “sold or purchased”
the contraband or had “manufactured drugs and
.
preparation” within the ambit of Section 21 and
Section 2(20) of the NDPS, therefore, at this
stage, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the
bail petitioner is not guilty of the offence. Moreover, the
of
accusation under Section 20 is to be examined, testedand proved during the trial.
rt
8(i). So far as the accusation under Section 25of NDPS Act is concerned, since the bail petitioner
was neither the owner or occupier nor the control or
use of any conveyance [i.e. Vehicle No. HP-01K-5700
which was used by main accused, namely, Roop Lal
and Raj Kumar] and the bail petitioner had no
connection with the said conveyance/vehicle, then, the
accusation under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, at this
stage, is not made out. Further the accusation is to
be examined, tested and proved during the trial.
8(ii). So far as the accusation under Section 29
::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
- 13 - ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
of the NDPS Act is concerned, the factum of abetment
and criminal conspiracy cannot be pre-judged, at this
stage. Even, the two monetary transaction of a paltry
.
sum of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner to Smt. Radha,
cannot point towards the culpable mental stage of the
bail petitioner, for the reason, that mere preponderance
of portability cannot lead to inference of abetment or
of
criminal conspiracy against the bail petitioner.
8(iii). Even the accusation under Section 238 of
rt
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, allegingdisappearance of evidence, is a matter, which is to
be examined, tested and proved during trial.
In the light of the above factual matrix,
reasonable ground exist for believing that the accused
is not guilty of the accusation vis-Ã -vis the accusation
against the two other main accused, from whom
the alleged contraband was recovered.
BAIL PETITIONER IMPLICATED ON CONFESSIONAL
STATEMENT OF MAIN ACCUSED:
9. Status Reports reveal that police arrested
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
the main accused, namely, Roop Lal and Raj Kumar,
while conducting search of vehicle and recovered
contraband weighing 2.950 Kgs. Status Reports
.
indicate that pursuant to the statement made before
police by accused Roop Lal, the present petitioner
[Damini] was arrested on 29.05.2025. The incarceration
of bail petitioner on the basis of the statement made
of
by other accused, is contrary to the mandate of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of
rt
Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1, in the following terms:
155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a
confessional statement made before an
officer designated under Section 42 orSection 53 can be the basis to convict
a person under the NDPS Act, without
any non obstante clause doing away
with Section 25 of the Evidence Actand without any safeguards, would be a
direct infringement of the constitutionalguarantees contained in Articles 14, 20
(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
158.2 That a statement recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as
a confessional statement in the trial
of an offence under the NDPS Act.
9(i). Another Coordinate Bench of this Court, in
Cr.MP (M) No. 916 of 2024, titled as Vijay Kumar
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 15 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on
10.06.2024, has enlarged the petitioner on bail, who
was arrested on the basis of a confessional statement
.
made by another accused and when, there was no
other cogent material to point towards the prima-facie
accusation. Since in the present case, the petitioner
has been implicated on the statement of accused,
of
Roop Lal and nothing cogent exists to point towards
the accusation therefore, the bail petitioner
rt
{Damini}, deserves to be enlarged on bail, as per
mandate of law in case of Tofan Singh [supra].
9(ii). Taking into account the mandate of law
in the case of Tofan Singh and Vijay Kumar [supra],
this Court is of the view that confessional statement
of main accused, namely, Roop Lal before the police
cannot be the basis for arresting the petitioner
when, neither any recovery nor any other cogent material
exists so as to connect the petitioner with the accusation;
and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged
on bail, in the instant case.
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
RIGOURS IN SPECIAL ENACTMENTS [SECTION
37 OF NDPS] GIVE WAY FOR BAIL BASED ON
PROLONGED INCARCERATION & TRIAL TO TAKE
CONSIDERABLE TIME:
10. Though in facts of instant case, the
.
accusation under Section 37(1)(b) is not made out
yet while dealing with the claim for bail under
Special Enactments and rigors of Section 45 (1) (ii)
of MPLA and proviso to Section 43-D (5) of Unlawful
of
Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 and Section 37 of
NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal
rt
Appeal No. 4011 of 2024, in V. Senthil Balaji
versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, has mandated that rigors in Special
Enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS Act, will
melt down where there is no likelihood of trial
being completed in a reasonable time and prolonged
incarceration so as to prevent the deprivation of
curtailment of personal liberty and right to speedy
trial in terms of Article 21 of Constitution of India,
in the following terms:-
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 17 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
“24. There are a few penal statutes that make a
departure from the provisions of Sections
437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. A higher threshold is
provided in these statutes for the grant of
bail. By way of illustration, we may refer
.
to Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, proviso
to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 37 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS
Act‘). The provisions regarding bail in some of
such statutes start with a non obstante clause
for overriding the provisions of Sections
of
437 to 439 of the CrPC. The legislature has
done so to secure the object of making the
penal provisions in such enactments. For
example, the PMLA provides for Section
rt 45(1)(ii) as money laundering poses a serious
threat not only to the country’s financial
system but also to its integrity and
sovereignty.
25. Considering the gravity of the offences in
such statutes, expeditious disposal of
trials for the crimes under these statutes
is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes
contain provisions laying down higher
threshold for the grant of bail. The
expeditious disposal of the trial is also
warranted considering the higher threshold
set for the grant of bail. Hence, the
requirement of expeditious disposal of cases
must be read into these statutes. Inordinate
delay in the conclusion of the trial and the
higher threshold for the grant of bail
cannot go together. It is a well settled
principle of our criminal jurisprudence
that “bail is the rule, and jail is the
exception.” These stringent provisions
regarding the grant of bail, such
as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot
become a tool which can be used to
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 18 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
incarcerate the accused without trial for
an unreasonably long time.
26. There are a series of decisions of this
Court starting from the decision in the
case of K.A. Najeeb, which hold that such
stringent provisions for the grant of bail
.
do not take away the power of
Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the
grounds of violation of Part III of the
Constitution of India. We have already
referred to paragraph 17 of the said
decision, which lays down that the rigours
of such provisions will melt down where
there is no likelihood of trial being
of
completed in a reasonable time and the
period of incarceration already undergone
has exceeded a substantial part of the
rt prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is
that if, because of such provisions,
incarceration of an under-trial accused is
continued for an unreasonably long time,
the provisions may be exposed to the vice
of being violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum
sentence is three years, and the maximum is
seven years. The minimum sentence is higher
when the scheduled offence is under
the NDPS Act. When the trial of the complaint
under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond
reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts
will have to consider exercising their powers to
grant bail. The reason is that Section
45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to
detain an accused for an unreasonably long
time, especially when there is no possibility of
trial concluding within a reasonable time.
What a reasonable time is will depend on the
provisions under which the accused is being
tried and other factors. One of the most
relevant factor is the duration of the minimum
and maximum sentence for the offence.
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Another important consideration is the higher
threshold or stringent conditions which a
statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an
outer limit provided by the relevant law for the
completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor
to be considered. The extraordinary powers,
.
as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can
only be exercised by the Constitutional
Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional
Courts have vast experience. Based on
the facts on record, if the Judges conclude
that there is no possibility of a trial
concluding in a reasonable time, the
power of granting bail can always be
of
exercised by the Constitutional Courts on
the grounds of violation of Part III of the
Constitution of India notwithstanding
the statutory provisions. The Constitutional
rt
Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 32 or Article 226, as the case
may be. The Constitutional Courts have to
bear in mind while dealing with the cases
under the PMLA that, except in a few
exceptional cases, the maximum sentence
can be of seven years. The Constitutional
Courts cannot allow provisions like
Section 45 (1) (ii) to become instruments
in the hands of the ED to continue
incarceration for a long time when there
is no possibility of a trial of the
scheduled offence and the PMLA offence
concluding within a reasonable time. If
the Constitutional Courts do not exercise
their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights
of the undertrials under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India will be defeated.
In a given case, if an undue delay in the
disposal of the trial of scheduled offences or
disposal of trial under the PMLA can be
substantially attributed to the accused, the
Constitutional Courts can always decline to
exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative
writs. An exception will also be in a case
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 20 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
where, considering the antecedents of the
accused, there is every possibility of the
accused becoming a real threat to society
if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue
prerogative writs is always discretionary.
29. As stated earlier, the appellant has
.
been incarcerated for 15 months or
more for the offence punishable under
the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the
trial of the scheduled offences and,
consequently, the PMLA offence is not
likely to be completed in three to four
years or even more. If the appellant’s
detention is continued, it will amount
of
to an infringement of his fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India of speedy trial.
rt 31. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, and
the appellant shall be enlarged on bail
till the final disposal of CC No. 9 of
2023 pending before the Principal Session
Judge, Chennai, on the following conditions
………”.
10(i). Reiterating that statutory embargoes in
Special Enactments have to yield in case of prolonged
incarceration when, weighed against the paramount
importance of the right to life and liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5266 of
2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of
2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate
of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Online SC 3729, by granting bail in the following
terms:-
“13. We have considered the rival submissions and
.
carefully examined the material on record. At
the outset, it is worth reiterating that this
Court, through a catena of decisions, has
consistently emphasized that prolonged
incarceration of an accused awaitingtrial unjustly deprives them of their right to
personal liberty. Even statutory embargoes
on the grant of bail must yield whenof
weighed against the paramount
importance of the right to life and
liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution, particularly in cases where
rt such incarceration extends over an
unreasonably long period without
conclusion of trial.
17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the
settled principles that a suspect cannot be
held in custody indefinitely and that
undertrial incarceration should notamount to punitive detention. The Court
would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or
influential accused do not obstruct the
ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence,or influence witnesses, namely, actions that
undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fairtrial.
18. Striking a balance between these
considerations and without expressing anyopinion on the merits of the allegations, we
deem it appropriate to dispose of this
appeal with the following directions :
a to e ……………………………………………
f. The Petitioner shall thereafter be
released on bail on 01.02.2025, subject::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court…..”
10(ii). 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 Supreme Court in case titled Umarmia Alias
Mamumia versus State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731,
of
in the following terms:
“11. This Court has consistently recognised the
rt 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 CourtLegal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994)
6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of
India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even incases under TADA, have been released on bail
on the ground that they have been in jail fora long period of time and there was no
likelihood of the completion of the trial atthe earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v.
State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569).”
10(iii). The Hon’ble Supreme Court having taken note
of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial ordered
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 23 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
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 framed under
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and
of
were behind the bars for almost two years and there was
no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.
rt
10(iv). The Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020,
titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
has enlarged the accused on bail whereby petitioner
was facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms
charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons
for having been in detention for more than 2 years
and there is no further progress in the trial.
10(v). While dealing the claim for bail by a
person involved in commercial quantity of contraband,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit of
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
bail in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s).1904/2023, titled as Sunil Kumar
Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on
.
29.03.2023, in the following terms:-
“It is noted that the petitioner has been
in custody for more that one and a half
years and the trial is yet to
conclude. Earlier, the petitioner had been
granted interim bail on two occasions andof
has not misused the liberty of interim bail or
violated any of the bail conditions imposed
upon him but has thereafter, surrendered
rt back.
Therefore, keeping all these aspects in
view, the petitioner is ordered to be releasedon bail subject to appropriate conditions being
imposed by the Trial Court including the
condition that the petitioner shall diligently
participate in the trial. Ordered accordingly.”
10(vi). Accepting the prayer for bail by accused
of commercial quantity in Petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4648/2024, titled
as Ankur Chaudhary Versus State of Madhya
Pradesh, decided on 28.05.2024, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court extended benefit of bail, in a case,
where the trial was not concluded within reasonable
time having been elapsed and also by invoking
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Article 21 of Constitution of India which mandates
that the prolonged incarceration, defeats the precious
fundamental rights; and fundamental rights override
.
the statutory embargo in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS
Act in the following terms:-
“Now, on examination, the panch witnesses
have not supported the case of prosecution.
On facts, we are not inclined to consider theof
Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is
to observe that failure to conclude the
trial within a reasonable time resulting in
rt prolonged incarceration militates against
the precious fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, and as such,conditional liberty overriding the
statutory embargo created under Section
37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such
circumstances, be considered.
In view of the above, we are inclined to allow
this petition and direct to enlarge the
petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitablebail bonds and sureties and on such other
terms and conditions as may be deemed fitby the trial Court.”
10(vii). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended
the concession of bail to an accused allegedly involved
in commercial quantity, who was facing incarceration
of one year and four months and in Petition(s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7115/
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
2024, titled as Sohrab Khan Versus The State
of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13.08.2024, in
the following terms:-
.
“The petitioner is an accused for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act. His bail application wasdismissed by the High Court. He has already
undergone about one year and four
months in jail. The petitioner and comof
accused were found in possession of 80 grams
of MD powder each of which commercial
quantity is 50 grams.
rt Considering the fact that the petitioner
criminal antecedents and the entire facts
and circumstances has no of this case, we
are of the opinion that a case of bail is madeout for the petitioner and therefore, the
prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be
released on bail forthwith on the usual terms
and conditions to be decided by the concerned
Court.”
10(viii). While dealing with the claim for bail
where the incarceration was prolonged in Petition(s)
for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9510/
2024, titled as Ram Lal Versus The State of
Rajasthan, decided on 17.09.2024, as in this case,
in the following terms:-
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
“The petitioner and the other accused persons
are accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act and
allegation is that 450 gm of smack has been
recovered from them. The bail application of
.
the petitioner was dismissed by the High
Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He
has already undergone about 1 year and 6
months in jail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As
per office report Rated 13.09.2924, the service
is deemed complete on the sole respondent-
State but no one has appeared for the state.
of
Considering the period of incarceration of
the petitioner and the fact that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we
rt are of the opinion that a case of bail is
made out for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to
be released on bail forthwith on the usual
terms and conditions to be decided by the
concerned Court.”
10(ix). While dealing with the claim for bail wherein
the accused was alleged to have been involved with
accusation for commercial quantity of Ganza under
Section 20 of the NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has accepted the prayer for bail in SLP (Criminal) No.
2401 of 2026, Satyajeet Bhoi versus State of
Chhattisgarh and another, decided on 16.03.2026
when nothing was brought on record to establish any
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
nexus between the bail petitioner and the alleged
contraband coupled with the factum of prolonged
incarceration and the fact that the trial was likely to
.
be delayed, in the following terms:
Learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant submitted that the
allegations under the provisions of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropicof
Substances, Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act“)
against the appellant herein are untrue;
rt merely because the appellant was a
passenger in the truck which was detainedand the contraband (150 Kilograms of
Ganja was recovered), the same cannot be
linked with the appellant herein. There
has been no material brought on recordto establish any nexus between the
appellant and the contrabandsubstance. But the appellant has been in
jail since 25.03.2024 which is almost twoyears; the trial has not progressed
substantially inasmuch fifteen witnesseshave to be examined; there would
inevitably be a delay in the trial. The
appellant has a good case on merits.
Hence, the impugned order may be set
aside and the relief of bail may be granted
to the appellant herein.
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 29 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate
General appearing for the State of
Chhattisgarh with reference to the counter
affidavit contended that the High Court.
was justified in declining to grant bail to
the appellant herein; that the co-accused
who was the driver of the truck fromwhich the contraband substance was
recovered is in jail; that if the appellant is
granted the relief of bail, it will result inof
frustration of the trial. In the
circumstances, he submitted that there is
no merit in this appeal and the same may
rt
be dismissed.
Considering the facts on record, in
our view, the case for bail is made out.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and
direct as under: “The appellant shall
be produced before the concerned
Trial Court as early as possible andthe Trial Court shall release him on
bail, subject to such conditions as it
may deem appropriate to impose to
ensure his presence in theproceedings arising out of FIR No.
29/2024 dated 25.03.2024
mentioned above.”
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
It is directed that the appellant shall
extend complete cooperation in the
ensuing trial.
The appellant shall not misuse his
.
liberty and shall not in any way influence
the witnesses or tamper with the material
on record.
The appellant shall ensure that he is
present before the Special Court/Trialof
Court on every date of hearing unless he is
able to seek exemption from appearance
for a valid and reasonable cause.
rt Any infraction of the conditions
may entail cancellation of bail grantedto the appellant.
INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
11. While reiterating the principle that bail is
a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can
be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation
and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the
eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined
the object of bail, in Guddan alias Roop Narayan
Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1242, in the following terms:-
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
“11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40,
while hearing a bail Application in a case
of an alleged economic offence, this court
held that the object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. It was observed.
as under:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is tosecure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object ofof
bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure that
an accused person will stand his trial
rt when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to theprinciple that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every
man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention
being the object of refusal of
bail, one must not lose sight of
the fact that any imprisonmentbefore conviction has a substantial
punitive content and it would beimproper for any court to refuse
bail as a mark of disapproval
of former conduct whether theaccused has been convicted for
it or not or to refuse bail to
an unconvicted person for the
purpose of giving him a taste
of imprisonment as a lesson.
25. The provisions of Cr PC confer
discretionary jurisdiction on criminal
courts to grant bail to the accused::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 32 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
pending trial or in appeal against
convictions; since the jurisdiction
is discretionary, it has to be
exercised with great care and
caution by balancing the valuable
right of liberty of an individual.
and the interest of the society
in general. In our view, the reasoning
adopted by the learned District
Judge, which is affirmed by theHigh Court, in our opinion, is a
denial of the whole basis of our
system of law and normal rule
of bail system. It transcendsof
respect for the requirement that
a man shall be considered
innocent until he is found guilty.
If such power is recognised, then
rt it may lead to chaotic situation
and would jeopardise the personal
liberty of an individual.
27. This Court, time and again, has
stated that bail is the rule and
committal to jail an exception. It
has also observed that refusalof bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution.”
12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000)
2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a
bail application held that conditions for
grant of bail cannot become so onerous
that their existence itself is tantamount
to refusal of bail. This Court held as
under:
“We are unable to appreciate even the
first order passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate imposing the onerous
condition that an accused at the FIR::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 33 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
stage should pay a huge sum of Rs.
2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had
paid it is a different matter. But the
fact that he was not able to pay
that amount and in default thereof
he is to languish in jail for more.
than 10 months now, is sufficient
indication that he was unable to make
up the amount. Can he be detained
in custody endlessly for his inabilityto pay the amount in the range of
Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by
his surety were dishonoured, the Court
could perhaps have taken it as aof
ground to suggest to the payee of
the cheques to resort to the legal
remedies provided by law.
rt Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied
with the conduct of the surety as for
his failure to raise funds for honouringthe cheques issued by him, the Court
could have directed the appellant to
substitute him with another surety.
But to keep him in prison for such
a long period, that too in a casewhere bail would normally be granted
for the offences alleged, is not only
hard but improper. It must beremembered that the Court has not
even come to the conclusion that theallegations made in the FIR are true.
That can be decided only when the
trial concludes, if the case is charge-
sheeted by the police.”
REFORMATIVE INTENT AND CLAIM FOR BAIL:
12. While dealing with the concept of bail which
has humanist and reformative intent coupled with the
fact that the personal liberty of an accused under
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 34 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held in Criminal Appeal
No. 2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi
.
Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another.
ADHERANCE TO PRINCIPLE:- BAIL IS RULE :
13. In facts of instant case, since the accusation
under Section 37(1)(b) is not made out, at this
of
stage, therefore, depriving the petitioner of theconcession of bail shall negate the principle that ‘bail
rt
is a rule and jail is an exception’, as outlined bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia
vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal)
No.8781 of 2024.
PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
14. Learned State Counsel has opposed the
claim for bail on the ground that as per the Status
Reports, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, who
has been involved in one criminal cases i.e. F.I.R
No. 68 of 2023 under Section 20 and 29 of the NDPS
Act at Police Station Damtal registered on 28.04.2023.
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
- 35 - ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
14(i). Before analyzing the contention of the
Learned State Counsel it is necessary to have a
recap of the mandate of law, in broader sense,
.
as to whether the past criminal antecedents are
relevant and in what circumstances and extent thereof
and in what circumstances and to what extent and
while considering the claim of an accused for bail,
of
which are detailed here-in-below.
14(ii). While negativating the plea that the past
rt
criminal antecedents {i.e. 36 criminal cases of serious
nature} cannot solely be the ground for denying bail
or in interfering with the bail order granted by a
Court, when, an accused was undergoing incarceration
coupled with the fact that no cogent material was
placed on record revealing that during bail there
is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial
or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is
likely to thwart justice, has been outlined by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Maulana Mohammed
Amir Rashidi versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012)
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 36 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
2 SCC 382.
14(iii). While granting bail to an accused having
criminal antecedents, who was facing incarceration
.
for 7 months and when, no prima-facie accusation
or reasonable grounds existed, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Prabhakar Tewari Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648. Further
of
despite the past criminal antecedents, benefit of bail,
was granted by applying the principle that accused
rt
is presumed to be innocent and merely in the guise
of pending cases, the presumption of guilt could
not be inferred and when, the accused is facing
incarceration for long, as has been outlined by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 852.
This principle has been reiterated in Ayub Khan
versus State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3763. Moreover, the pendency of other criminal cases
cannot be invoked for denying bail, when, no prima
facie case exists and prolonged incarceration was
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 37 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
writ large, in Prem Prakash versus Union of India
through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2270.
.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING
WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC :
15. Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have neither pointed out cogent and convincing
of
material revealing adversarial circumstances thatafter release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper
rt
with evidence or may cause inducement, threat orpromise to any person or persons acquainted with
the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if
any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded,
by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING
AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT:
16. In order to safeguard the rights of bail
petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State
that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding
the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed
out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 38 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail
orders, in later part of this order.
CONCLUSION:
.
17. In facts of instant case, as discussed above,
the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the
reason, that firstly, there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the bail petitioner is not guilty and is
of
not likely to commit any offence while on bail, asno recovery was made and the petitioner had neither
rt
sold nor purchased the alleged contraband and thepetitioner was neither the owner or occupier nor
had used the conveyance [alleged vehicle in question] and
accusation under Section 37(1)(b) is not made out
at this stage as discussed hereinabove; and secondly,
the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in
custody since 29.05.2025 and is undergoing
incarceration for about ten months; and thirdly,
conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable
time, when, the charge against the accused still
to be framed and PWs are to be examined as yet
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 39 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
and the trial is likely to take considerable time ; and
fourthly, the delay in trial is not attributable to the
petitioner ; and fifthly, reasonable grounds exist to
.
believe that bail petitioner is not guilty and is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail; and
sixthly, the continued detention can neither be
punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued
of
detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by
presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly,
rt
nothing cogent and convincing has been placed on
record that there is possibility of accused fleeing
away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten
witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly,
nothing incriminating material has been found
from exclusive possession of petitioner and the
accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved
during the trial; and lastly, in order to safeguard
the interest of State vis-Ã -vis the right of petitioner,
this Court imposes stringent condition in this order
and in case of any violation of or misuse of the
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 40 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
concession-liberty, the State Authority can seek
cancellation of the concession extended to the petitioner.
Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct
.
fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of
speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of
facts and circumstances and the mandate of law as
of
referred to above, the claim of the petitioner [Damini]
for enlargement on bail, carries weight, in the peculiar
rt
facts-situation of this case, as discussed above.
DIRECTIONS:
18. Taking into account the entirety of the
facts and the material on record and the mandate
of law and the reasons recorded hereinabove and
in the peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is
allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to
release the petitioner [Damini] on bail, subject to the
observance of following conditions:-
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release
bail petitioner [Damini] on furnishing personal
bond of Rs.75,000/- {Rs Seventy Five::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 41 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
Thousand} with two sureties of the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Learned
Trial Court concerned, if not required in
any other case;
(ii) Petitioner shall undertake and shall also
.
appear on every date of trial hereinafter;
(iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other
condition(s), which may be imposed by
the Learned Trial Court, in view of this
order;
(iv) Petitioner shall neither involve herself nor
of
shall abet the commission of any offence
hereinafter. Involvement in any offence
whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail
rt automatic cancellation of bail granted in
terms of this order ;
(v) Petitioner shall disclose her functional
E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of
her surety to the Learned Trial Court;
(vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the
Investigating Officer or SHO of Police
Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every
month at 11.00 a.m., only for having an
update on good conduct and behaviour;
(vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and
also shall not leave the country without
the prior information of the Court;
(viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence
in any manner;
(ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement,
threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to
witnesses of any other person acquainted with
the case;
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
- 42 - ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
(x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of
any condition contained hereinabove, if
need arises;
(xi) State Authorities are free to move this
Court for seeking alteration/modification of
.
any of the condition contained in this
order or any condition imposed by the
Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this
order, in fact situation of instant case
or circumstances so necessitate, at any
time herein-after;
of
(xii) State Authorities are free to move this
Court for seeking cancellation of the
concession of bail, in case, the petitioner
violates any of the conditions contained
rt in this order.;
19. Observations made in this judgment shall
not be construed in any manner as an indictive of
findings, for or against the parties herein, either for
the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall
proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of
the observations contained hereinabove.
20. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy
of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities
concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for
production of a certified copy, but if required, may
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS
– 43 – ( 2026:HHC:9111 )
verify about the passing of this order from the Website
of this Court.
21. Registry is directed to forward a copy of
.
this order to Superintendent of Police, Kangra at
Dharamshala, for information and with a direction to
intimate the SHO, Police Station, Nurpur to keep an
update on good conduct and behaviour of the bail
of
petitioner [Damini] in terms of this order.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
rt
shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
25th March, 2026
( tm)
::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 20:31:46 :::CIS