Surinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 July, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Surinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 July, 2026

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

2026:HHC:27023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MP(M) No.1097 of 2026
Decided on: 07.07.2027

.

_______________________________________________________________

Surinder Kumar ………..Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ………..Respondent

_______________________________________________________________
Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1

of
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Rishi & Mr. Khem Raj,
Advocates.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal
rt Panwar, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan
& Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General.

_______________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Bail petitioner, namely Surinder Kumar, who is

behind the bars since 09.03.2025, 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. 49 of 2025, dated 09.03.2025, under Section 20 of the

NDPS Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Chamba, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI

Narender Kumar, Police Station Sadar Chamba, District

Chamba, H.P., has come present along with 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 20:34:22 :::CIS
2

2026:HHC:27023

3. Close security of record/status report reveals that

on 09.03.2025, police party, while laying nakka near Phulnutala

.

Chowk, Chamba, noticed one person carrying a rucksack on his

shoulder. Since aforesaid person on seeing the police party got

perplexed and tried to flee, police personnel went towards him,

but before that he threw rucksack on the side of the road and

of
started going towards Sahu. However, police apprehended

aforesaid person, who subsequently disclosed his name to be
rt
Surinder Kumar and upon searching the rucksack allegedly

recovered 1.570 Kgs of charas from the bag allegedly thrown by

him on the side of the road. 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, as

detailed hereinabove, and since then bail petitioner is behind

the bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of

law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-

petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Nitin Rishi, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely

implicated, because nothing was recovered from him, rather

from the bag allegedly thrown by him on the side of the road. He

states that there is nothing on record to suggests that bag from

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:27023

which commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered

belongs to the petitioner, rather same appears to have been

.

planted to falsely implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel for

the petitioner states that petitioner is behind the bars for almost

15 months, but till date, prosecution has been able to examine

7 witnesses, out of 20 prosecution witnesses, meaning thereby

of
considerable time is likely to be consumed in the conclusion of

trial and as such, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail on

5.
rt
afore ground only.

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 though

nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but

keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been

committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states

that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record

suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug paddler and

on the date of recovery, he attempted to illegally transport

commercial quantity of contraband, but after having seen the

police threw his bag on the side of the road. Learned Additional

Advocate General states that in past, no case stands registered

against the petitioner, but having taken note of commercial

quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the

petitioner, this Court can well presume that bail petitioner is a

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:27023

drug paddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he

may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such

.

activities, as such, prayer for grant of bail made on his behalf

deserves to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused material available on record, this Court is not

of
persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that

petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds
rt
that commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered

from the bag allegedly thrown by the petitioner in the presence

independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact

that bail petitioner is behind the bars for almost 15 months and

till date, prosecution has been able to examine 7 witnesses, out

of 20 prosecution witnesses, this Court is persuaded to consider

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

the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

7. Though, learned Additional Advocate General

attempted to argue that 7 prosecution witnesses have already

been examined and court below has already fixed the date on

24.08.2026 and 28.08.2026 for recording the statements of the

remaining prosecution witnesses, but once it stands established

on record that it took almost 15 months for the prosecution to

examine 7 witnesses, this Court has reason to believe and

presume that considerable time is likely to be consumed in the

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:27023

conclusion of trial and if during aforesaid period petitioner is

left to incarcerate in jail during the pendency of the trial, it may

.

not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also violates

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which also guarantees

speedy trial. Moreover, averments contained in the petition

clearly reveals that the petitioner is a first offender and there is

of
no earning member in the family to look after its affairs and on

account of petitioner’s continued incarceration, the family is on

8.
rt
the verge of starvation.

No doubt, rigours of Section 37 of the Act are

attracted, but bare perusal of provisions contained under

Section 37 nowhere suggests that no bail can be granted in

cases involving commercial quantity, rather in such cases,

Court after affording due opportunity of hearing to public

prosecutor can proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that the

bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of

bail he/she will not indulge in such activities again. In the case

at hand, at present, there is nothing to suggest that bail-

petitioner has been falsely implicated, but at the same time,

there is nothing on record to suggest that in the event of

petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may again indulge in these

activities, especially when no case in past has been registered

against petitioner under the NDPS Act.

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
6

2026:HHC:27023

9. Though, having taken note of recovery of

commercial quantity of contraband in the presence of

.

independent witnesses, it would be too premature to conclude

that petitioner has been falsely implicated, but having taken

note of the fact that commercial quantity of contraband came to

be recovered from the Pittu bag allegedly thrown by the

of
petitioner and no articles or personal belongings, if any,

suggestive of the fact that bag belonging to the petitioner came
rt
to be recovered from the bag, coupled with the fact that no case

stands registered against the petitioner in past, this Court is

persuaded to infer that there is no likelihood of the petitioner

indulging in these activities again during pendency of the case.

10. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is legal

right of the accused and one cannot be made to suffer

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

reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite

period during trial. Delay in trial has been held to be in violation

of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of

Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, relevant para whereof has been

reproduced herein below:-

“11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the
accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been
held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme
Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:27023

731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC

616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released
on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long
period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of

.

the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of

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

11. Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate

delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for

enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v.

of
The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone
rt
v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were

also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and

there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future,

subject to certain conditions.

12. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments, a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in CrMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 titled

Roop Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on

6.9.2022, also ordered for enlargement of an accused, who was

allegedly apprehended carrying commercial quantity of

Tramadol, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

13. Apart from above judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court while granting bail vide order dated 22.3.2021 in

CrMP(M) No. 35 of 2021 titled Ajay Singh v. State of

Himachal Pradesh, also placed reliance upon a judgment

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:27023

delivered by a three-Judge Bench in Cr. Appeal No. 668 of 2020

titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh,

.

decided on 12.10.2020, wherein petitioner was allegedly found

in possession of 3285 grams of charas from a vehicle, wherein

four other persons were sitting.

14. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to

of
substantiate his plea for enlarging the petitioner on bail, has

referred order dated 12.10.20220 passed by a 3-Judge Bench of
rt
the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled

Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby

petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms

charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was

enlarged on bail, for having been in detention for 2 years and 7

months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to

be examined and last witness was examined in February, 2020

and, thereafter, there as no further progress in the trial.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to

judgment of a 3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court, passed on

19.7.2022 in NarcoticsControlBureau v. MohitAggarwal

contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for

enlarging the petitioner on bail.

16. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that in Mohit Aggarwal, huge commercial quantity of

20 kilograms of Tramadol, against minimum commercial

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:27023

quantity of 250 grams, was recovered, whereas, in the present

case, the recovered quantity is little more than the commercial

.

quantity.

17. In similar circumstances, in CrMP(M) No. 1255 of

2022, titled Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh,

decided on 28.7.2022, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

of
having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial,

ordered enlargement on bail of the person, who was

18.
rt
apprehended with 1.996 kg of charas.

Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi

Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal

Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, adversely

commented upon the approach of trial Court as well as High

Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail. In the

aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court having taken note

of the fact that appellant in that case was in jail for last four

years and Court till that date was not able to frame charges,

proceeded to enlarge accused on bail in a case registered under

the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In

no uncertain terms, Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment

held that, however serious a crime may be, an accused has right

to speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. Relevant Paras of aforesaid judgment are reproduced

hereinbelow, which reads as under:

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
10

2026:HHC:27023

“7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having gone through the materials on record, we
are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the

.

appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects:

(i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four
years;

(ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even

proceed to frame charge; and

(iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as
well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than

of
eighty witnesses.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what
period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever
rt
serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial
as enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High
Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial

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

quote:

“What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants

reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord
Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox] :

“I observe that in this case bail was refused for the
prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on
the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at trial.”

11. The same principle has been reiterated by this Court in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in
(1980) 2 SCC 565 that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to
be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should
be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:27023

will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

12. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy.,

.

State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, this court had

declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing
criminal charges is “implicit in the broad sweep and content
of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court”. Remarking that a

valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a
procedure that is “reasonable, fair and just” it was held that:

“Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for

of
depriving a person of liberty cannot be “reasonable,
fair or just”unless that procedure ensures a speedy
trial for determination of the guilt of such person.
rt No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably
quick trial can be regarded as “reasonable, fair or

just” and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by
speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial,
is an integral and essential part of the

fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in
Article21. The question which would, however,
arise is as to what would be the consequence if a

person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial
and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by

imprisonment as a result of along delayed trial in
violation of his fundamental right under Article

21.”

13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and
again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya &
Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1
SCC 225. In the latter the court re-emphasized the right to
speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing
prolonged trial, has no option:

“The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus,
the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the
case maybe, to proceed with the case with reasonable
promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the
large majority of accused come from poorer and

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:27023

weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways
of law, where they do not often get competent legal
advice, the application of the said rule is wholly

.

inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused

demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one,may
be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot
disentitle an accused from complaining of

infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground
that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.”

14. In Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)

of
reported in 2023INSC 311, this Court observed as under:

“21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect
that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant
rt of bail,may be necessary in public interest; yet, if
trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked

on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are
overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
than not, appalling. According to the Union Home
Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime

Records Bureau had recorded that as on
31stDecember 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were
lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs

in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the
rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.

22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that
inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described
by the KeralaHigh Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State

reported in 1993Cri LJ 3242, as “a radical
transformation” whereby the prisoner:

“loses his identity. He is known by a number. He
loses personal possessions. He has no personal
relationships. Psychological problems result from
loss of freedom,status, possessions, dignity any
autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of
prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner
becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”

23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning
to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:27023

more professional the crime, more honour is paid to
the criminal”(also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison
Community’ published in 1940). Incarceration has

.

further deleterious effects – where the accused

belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate
loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of
families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation

from society. The courts therefore,have to be sensitive
to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal,
the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure

of
that trials – especially in cases, where special laws
enact stringent provisions, are taken up and
concluded speedily.”

rt

15. The requirement of law as being envisaged under
Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

(hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that
the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall
be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have
precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts

are to be designated for such an offence by the Central
Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High
Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.

16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India
v. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713] had an occasion

to consider the long incarceration and at the same time the
effect of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as under

: (SCC p. 722, para 17)

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional
courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III
of the Constitution. Indeed,both the restrictions
under a statute as well as the powers exercisable
under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings,the courts are expected to appreciate the
legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours
of such provisions will melt down where there is no
likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:27023

time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the
prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safe-

.

guard against the possibility of provisions like Section

43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for
denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional
right to speedy trial.”

17. In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC
51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the

of
attention of the court, which considered the correct approach
towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including
Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that
rt
Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be
enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified

periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973would apply:

“We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as
each special Act has got an objective behind it,
followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle

governing delay would apply to these categories also.
To make it clear, the provision contained in Section
436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts

also in the absence of any specific provision. For
example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of

the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a
case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We
do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the

adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of
cases number of witnesses would be very less and
there may not be any justification for prolonging the
trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the
directions of this Court to expedite the process and
also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code.”

18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human
potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any
criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental
is often missed when dealing with delinquents,juvenile and
adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a
future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:27023

responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those
factors may be social and economic, maybe, the result of
value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the

.

stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations

in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other
privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the

court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State

of
or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea
for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the
rt
nature of the crime.”

19. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena

of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent

till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance

with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused

is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent

and convincing material on record and as such, his

incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of

Fundamental Right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional

Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged

on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the

bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated

by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

20. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.

227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:27023

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.

21. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus

of
Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court

Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive
rt
ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be

balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been

repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is

to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by

reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive

nor preventative.

22. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI,

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

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

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

whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is

probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise

also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court

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

support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:27023

will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are

peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

.

23. 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

of
gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of

repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

24.
rt
In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law

laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out

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

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

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the

satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court,

with following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of

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

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

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

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

::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2026 20:34:22 :::CIS
18

2026:HHC:27023

25. 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.

26. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be

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

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

petition stands accordingly disposed of.

27.
rt
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 20:34:22 :::CIS