Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 10.01.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
2025:HHC:3002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1759 of 2024 Reserved on: 10.01.2025 Announced on: 15.01.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sumit Sharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent For the petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Sumit Sharma], who is in custody since 26.09.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS.'], originating from FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023, registered with police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2- 2025:HHC:3002 the NDPS Act). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case of the petitioner as presented by
Sh. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Learned Counsel is that a false case as in FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023 has been registered against the bail petitioner. It is averred that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not applicable to the instant case. It is further further averred that recovery of Heroin/Chitta 10.67 grams is not attributable to the bail petitioner and no recovery has been made from him. It is further averred that the prosecution story is just to implicate him. It is further averred that there is no evidence to connect the bail petitioner with the accusation of the offence. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has filed an application for bail, before the learned Special Judge-II Hamirpur, which was dismissed on 03.02.2024 and the second bail application was also dismissed on 16.07.2024 by the learned Special Judge-II, Hamirpur. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before this Court, which
-3- 2025:HHC:3002 was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.5.2024. 2(i) It is further averred that the bail petitioner has narrated the incidents of his previous accusation in six NDPS cases, in para 13 of the bail petition. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has furnished the undertakings that he shall abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not flee away from the investigation or the trial. It is further averred that bail petitioner shall not caused any inducement threat or promise or to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. It is further averred that during the course of hearing that prolonged incarceration of the petitioner for the last about 1 year and 3 months has violated and curtailed the persons liberty of petitioner and right to speedy trial has also been denied to him as out of the 23 witnesses only 4 PWs have been examined as on date and the trial is likely to take considerable time.
In this background the prayer for bail has
-4- 2025:HHC:3002 been filed before this Court.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3(i). Pursuant to issuance of notice dated 24.08.2024, the State Authorities have filed the status report dated 16.09.2024.
3(ii). A perusal of the Status Report narrates the sequence of events that on 25.09.2023, at about 9.20 p.m, a police party headed by ASI Raj Kumar and others were on patrolling duty at Dosarka, Mattan Sidh, Kohli and Bhira and about 11.45 p.m. ASI Raj Kumar received an information that the bail petitioner Sumit Kumar @ Shinglu and Sunil Thakur @ Sonu, who were travelling in Vehicle No. HP 22D-8091, from Bilaspur to Hamirpur were carrying Heroin-Chitta. Based on such information the vehicle was stopped by the police at 12.20 a.m at Didwin on 26.09.2023. On making inquires the bail petitioner got out of the vehicle and disclosed his identity and thereafter the contraband was recovered which after weighing turn
-5- 2025:HHC:3002 out to be 10.67 grams Heroin/Chitta. Thereafter sampling was done and Rukka was sent and thereafter FIR was registered.
3(iii). Pursuant to registration of FIR the investigation was started by the police and statement under 161 Cr.PC were recorded and thereafter inventory under Section 52 of the Act was prepared. Samples of case property was sent to SFSL, Junga and as per report of SFSL, it contained Dicetyl morphine (Heroin). Both the accused were made to undergo medical examination. Blood sample so taken was sent to RFSL and RFSL submitted a report confirming Ketamine and Tramadol were detected in blood sample of the petitioner. Status report indicates that out of total 15 cases 6 NDPS cases were registered against the bail petitioner.
In these circumstances, the prayer for bail has been opposed.
4. Heard Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Pratyush Sharma,
-6- 2025:HHC:3002 Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent(s).
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
5. In order to test, the claim for enlargement on bail, it is necessary to have a recap of the provisions of Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under :-
"Section 21 of the NDPS Act reads as under:
21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations-
Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punishable ,--
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend
-7- 2025:HHC:3002 to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.-
(1) Whoever abets or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which-
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAILS:
6. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the
-8- 2025:HHC:3002 cases of 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, that bail is to be granted where the allegation is 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, the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and the offence is serious, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and the trial, and the Character, including past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension
-9- 2025:HHC:3002 of witnesses being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc; and then in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; have been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, as under:
"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced and
(viii). Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
6(i). In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power to grant or refuse bail is an extraordinary power,
- 10 - 2025:HHC:3002 which has to be sparingly exercised subject to the anvil of the time tested parameters and restrictions imposed in law. It is trite law that while considering prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the factum of prolonged pre-conviction incarceration and the right of speedy trial has to be taken into account, in the background of the fact as to whether delay in trial was attributable to an accused or not. Another added factor and not the sole factor of past criminal antecedents; and the factum as to whether an accused has misused concession-liberty granted earlier. While considering the prayer for bail, the balance has to be carved out between the liberty of an accused vis-à-vis the societal interests, including danger of justice being thwarted in case the bail is granted.
6(ii). This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus
- 11 - 2025:HHC:3002 Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, the character of accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and the larger public/state interests. It is in this background, that the claim for bail is to be examined by a 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.
6(iii). Even a suspect or an accused under the NDPS Act does not have any vested right or an
- 12 - 2025:HHC:3002 automatic claim for bail, merely on the ground, that alleged quantity of contraband is either small or intermediate. While considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop of broad parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above.
The exception to this principle is that the enlargement on bail {be it relates to either small or intermediate quantity of contraband} can be extended depending on facts of each case, in case, the prima facie accusation does not points towards involvement and no reasonable grounds exit, when, no recovery was made by the police from the accused or when, the alleged recovery by police appears to be highly doubtful without there being any connecting material to infer prima facie accusation and after taking into
- 13 - 2025:HHC:3002 account other parameters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above.
ANALYSIS:
7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as borne out from the Status Report, this Court is of the considered view that the bail petitioner [Sumit Sharma] is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage for the following reasons:
7(i). Respondents have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material to point towards the accusation under Section 21 and 29 of the Act, which is a matter to be tested and examined during the trial, which is underway. Moreover, the petitioner has been roped in for Intermediate Quantity and is suffering incarceration for last one year and three months [since 26.09.2023] till day deserves to be enlarged on bail.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: INCARCERATION BY PRESUMING GUILTY IMPERMISSIBLE:
- 14 - 2025:HHC:3002
8. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception coupled with the fact that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty upon trial has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:-
"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 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle 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
- 15 - 2025:HHC:3002 the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused 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 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 the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty.
If such power is recognised, then 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 refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual
- 16 - 2025:HHC:3002 guaranteed under Article 21 of the 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 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 inability to 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 a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law.
Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the 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 case where bail would normally be granted
- 17 - 2025:HHC:3002 for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations 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 APPROACH IN BAIL:
9. In order to ensure the personal liberty of and to ensure speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the concept of bail has been outlined, despite the stringent penal laws by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, in the following terms:-
"18 Criminals are not born out but made.
The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation
- 18 - 2025:HHC:3002 of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside."
BAIL NOT TO BE DENIED BY WAY OF PENALTY :
10. While deprecating the action of the State Authorities in denying the bail to an accused who has suffered prolonged incarceration, by depriving
- 19 - 2025:HHC:3002 him of the speedy trial amounts to curtailing and violating the sacrosanct rights of personal liberty dehors the principle that bail is rule and jail is an exception, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024, decided on 9.8.2024, in following terms:-
"49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.
50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.
52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
"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 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
- 20 - 2025:HHC:3002 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""
53. The Court further observed that, 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. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".
55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering
- 21 - 2025:HHC:3002 with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant."
10(i). While adjudicating the claim for bail, even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS Act], the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.________of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter has mandated that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions, in the following terms:-
"13. We had also reiterated the well-established principle that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception". We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions."
RIGOURS IN SPECIAL ENACTMENTS [SECTION 37 OF NDPS] TO GIVE WAY FOR BAIL BASED ON PROLONGED INCARCERATION & TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:
11. While dealing with the claim for bail under Special Enactments and rigors of Section 45 (1) (ii)
- 22 - 2025:HHC:3002 of MPLA and proviso to Section 43-D (5) of Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 and Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal 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:-
"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
- 23 - 2025:HHC:3002 for overriding the provisions of Sections 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 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 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
- 24 - 2025:HHC:3002 of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the 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. 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
- 25 - 2025:HHC:3002 concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The Constitutional 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 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
- 26 - 2025:HHC:3002 likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.
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 .........".
11(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 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
- 27 - 2025:HHC:3002 consistently emphasized that prolonged incarceration of an accused awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their right to personal liberty. Even statutory embargoes on the grant of bail must yield when weighed against the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in cases where 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 not amount 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 fair trial.
18. Striking a balance between these considerations and without expressing any opinion 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 to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court....."
Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances as detailed hereinabove, once the bail petitioner has suffered incarceration for
- 28 - 2025:HHC:3002 almost 1 year and 3 months now [since 26.9.2023] and even trial is likely to take considerable time for the reason, that out of a total 23 PWs only 4 PWs, have been examined therefore, in facts of instant case, any further detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner and that too on mere conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. Detention of the petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Continued detention certainly violates the principle of "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". Even the State Authorities have failed to ensure speedy trial and considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial and therefore, on totality of circumstances and the mandate of law in the cases of Guddan alias Roop Narayan, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Manish Sisodia, Kalvakuntla Kavitha, Senthil Balaji and
- 29 - 2025:HHC:3002 Partha Chatterjee [supra], the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
ABOVE BROADER PRINCIPLES OF BAIL APPLIED IN GRAVER OFFENCES APPLIED TO LESSER GRAVER ACCUSATION:
12. In backdrop of the mandate of law supra, once the concession of bail has been granted by taking into account the prolonged incarceration and the fact that conclusion of the trial was likely to take considerable time in cases of commercial quantity under NDPS Act then, on the same anology and by applying the same broader principles, to the facts of instant case, where the accusation against the petitioner relates to lesser graver accusation of Intermediate Quantity which of course, is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial and therefore, this Court accedes to the prayer for bail, to the petitioner in facts of instant case.
PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
13. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that the bail petitioner has
- 30 - 2025:HHC:3002 been involved in fifteen criminal cases i.e. Sr. F.I.R No. Date FIR registered under Sections & Status No. Police Station
1. 98/17 27.04.2021 21, 29, 61 & 85 under NDPS Act, Pending PS Sadar Hamirpur
2. 79/20 03.03.2020 21, 61 and 85 under NDPS Act, Pending PS Sohana Punjab
3. 57/21 03.04.2021 21, 29, 61 & 85 under NDPS Act, Pending PS Sadar Hamirpur
4. 154/21 16.11.2021 21, 29, 61 & 85 under NDPS Act, Pending PS Nadaun
5. 117/23 08.06.2023 21, 29, 61 & 85 under NDPS Act, Pending PS Sadar Hamirpur
6. 63/18 16.01.2018 21, 29, 61 & 85 under NDPS Act, Pending PS Sadar Hamirpur
7. 430/05 24.12.2005 457, 380 IPC, Police Acquitted.
Station Una
8. 353/09 23.11.2023 323, 324 & 34 IPC P.S Sadar Acquitted Hamirpur
9. 121/10 4.4.2010 279, 337 IPC & 184 MV Act, P.S Acquitted Sadar Hamirpur
10. 233/12 28.08.2012 379, 511 IPC, PS Sadar Hamirpur Acquitted 11 58/18 13.03.2018 504, 506, 323, 341 & 34 IPC, Pending G.P. Makrurh
12. 96/22 19.04.2022 457, 380, 201, 411 & 34 IPC, PS Pending Sadar Hamirpur
13. 211/22 15.09.2022 341, 323 & 34 IPC, G.P. Baroha Pending
14. 69/12 28.08.2012 379 IPC PS Sunder Nagar Acquitted
15. 276/14 03.09.2014 279, 337 IPC & 187 MV Act P.S. Acquitted.
Balah 13(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 past
- 31 - 2025:HHC:3002 antecedents turn out to be irrelevant or not much relevant while considering the claim of an accused for bail, which are detailed here-in-below. 13(ii). While negativating the plea that the past 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) 2 SCC 382, in the following terms;
4. On the basis of a written complaint in the Police Station, Phoolpur, FIR No 63 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was registered. The second respondent was arrested only on 24.08.2009. It was further stated by the appellant that the accused is a habitual criminal and
- 32 - 2025:HHC:3002 has a criminal background having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences against him.
10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
11. In the case relating to FIR No. 63 of 2009, he was arrested and in jail since 24.08.2009. Another important aspect is that after filing of charge-sheet on 15.07.2010, prosecution examined two important witnesses as PWs 1 and 2. This was the position prevailing on 26.07.2010. Even thereafter, now more than a year has rolled. Counsel appearing for the State assured that the trial will not be prolonged at the instance of the prosecution and ready to complete the evidence within a period to be directed by this Court. The other objection of the appellant for grant of bail is that he had received threats from the second respondent and his supporters warning him not to pursue the case against him. It is brought to our notice that based on the representations of
- 33 - 2025:HHC:3002 the appellant, adequate protection had already been provided to him.
13. Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact that the second respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. In fact, in the impugned order itself, the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps to send the applicant to jail again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if the appellant receives any fresh threat from the second respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take appropriate steps as observed by the High Court. We also direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments.
14. With the above observation, finding no merit for interference with the order of the High Court, the appeal is dismissed.
13(iii). While granting bail to an accused having
- 34 - 2025:HHC:3002 criminal antecedents and was facing incarceration for 7 months and when, no prima-facie accusation or reasonable grounds existed, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, in the following terms:-
"4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused Vikram Singh is involved in at least five other criminal cases under the same Police Station, Jagdishpur. He has also brought to our notice the witness statement of one Narendra Dev Upadhyay. This statement was recorded on 29th March 2019. The part of his statement to which our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant records that the said witness saw Vikram Singh standing near National Highway 56 Flyover on the date of occurrence of the incident in Warisganj with 6 or 7 accomplices and all of them were talking about plans of killing the victim.
5. We have considered the respective submissions. The facts highlighted by the appellant are that the case involves offence under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B / 34, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused has several criminal cases pending against him and has been named in the statement forming the basis of the FIR on the date of occurrence itself. Two individuals, Rahul Tiwari and Narendra Dev Upadhyay, whose statements have been recorded under
- 35 - 2025:HHC:3002 Section 161 of the 1973 Code also refer to involvement of the accused Vikram Singh.
7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in the case of Mahipal (supra) for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2020 [arising out of SLP (Crl) No.9209 of 2019].
9. The accused is Malkhan Singh in this appeal. He was named in the FIR by the appellant Prabhakar Tewari as one of the five persons who had intercepted the motorcycle on which the deceased victim was riding, in front of Warisganj Railway Station (Halt) on the highway. All the
- 36 - 2025:HHC:3002 five accused persons, including Malkhan Singh, as per the F.I.R. and majority of the witness statements, had fired several rounds upon the deceased victim. The statement of Rahul Tewari recorded on 15th March, 2019, Shubham Tewari recorded on 12th April, 2019 and Mahipam Mishra recorded on 20th April 2019 giving description of the offending incident has been relied upon by the appellant. It is also submitted that there are other criminal cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the accused- respondent no.2 has however pointed out the delay in recording the witness statements. The accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case also, we find no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the accused Malkhan Singh. The reason why we come to this conclusion is broadly the same as in the previous appeal. This appeal is also dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed."
13(iv). While extending the concession of bail despite past criminal antecedents, on principle that 'bail is rule and jail is an exception', benefit of bail, and an accused is presumed to be innocent and in the guise of pending cases, the presumption of guilt could not be inferred as has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine
- 37 - 2025:HHC:3002 SC 852, in the following terms:-
"9. He would contend that there are other three (3) cases registered against the respondent which would suffice to reject the bail in the instant case relying upon the letter dated 15.12.2023 written by the father of the complainant in the case No.225 of 2023 addressed to the State Police alleging that the respondent and his associates are threatening the life of the complainant and pressurizing him to withdraw the case and hence there is every likelihood of the witnesses in the instant case also being threatened therefore he seeks for allowing of the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court. He would further contend that the respondent is an influential person and would make all attempts to threaten or influence witnesses and there is every likelihood that he may succeed in his attempts if he continues to have the benefit of the bail. He would also submit that respondent is an influential and a person with criminal history and having close ties with many gangsters and criminals apart from the top cadres CPI-Maoist, as such there is every likelihood for the respondent to tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Hence, he prays for the appeal being allowed and impugned order being set aside.
10. Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, by supporting the impugned order contends that the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Special Judge by granting bail to the respondent conditionally way back on 30.01.2023 and even after lapse of more than 1 year and 3 months, there
- 38 - 2025:HHC:3002 being no allegation on the conditions of bail having been violated, itself is a good ground for non-interference with the order of bail granted by the High Court. Elaborating his submissions, he would contend that the prosecution is seeking for the impugned order being set aside essentially on the ground that respondent is involved in three (3) cases apart from the case registered by NIA. He would further submit that the case registered by Chandwa PS in Case No.99 of 2014 has resulted in acquittal and in the case No.108 of 2015, the respondent has been enlarged on bail by the High Court of Jharkhand. Lastly, in the case No.4 of 2020, the respondent has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Jharkhand and as such the purported criminal antecedent did not sway in the mind of High Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail. Even otherwise the pendency of three (3) other cases would have no bearing for the continuation of the order of bail granted in favour of the respondent. Hence, he has prayed for rejection of the appeal.
15. As rightly contended by Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent, in the first case afore- mentioned the respondent has been acquitted by judgment dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure R-11). In so far as the cases at Serial No.2 and 3 (supra), the respondent has been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure R-12) and order dated 10.07.2020. In yet another case registered by Chandwa PS Case No. 225 of 2023 the respondent has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in ABP No. 426 of 2023.
- 39 - 2025:HHC:3002 16. The afore-stated facts when seen
cumulatively, it would reflect that respondent having been enlarged on bail conditionally and the conditions so stipulated having not been violated and undisputedly the appellant-state having not sought for cancellation of the bail till date would be the prime reason for us not to entertain this appeal. In fact, the apprehension of the Union of India that respondent is likely to pose threat to the witnesses and there was a threat posed to the complainant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, would not be a ground to set aside the impugned order enlarging the respondent on bail in as much in the case referred against the respondent for the said offence he has been granted bail. That apart we are of the considered view that there are no other overwhelming material on record to set aside the order granting bail which out weighs the liberty granted by the High Court under the impugned order.
17. Hence, we are of the considered view that interference is not warranted. However, to allay the apprehension of the prosecution it would suffice to observe that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of the bail in the event any of the conditions being violated by the respondent and in the event of such an application being filed we see no reason as to why said application would not be considered on its own merits by the jurisdictional court independently and without being influenced by its earlier observations. We also make it expressly clear that the observations made under the impugned order would be restricted to the consideration of the prayer for bail and the jurisdictional court without being influenced by any of the observation
- 40 - 2025:HHC:3002 shall proceed to adjudicate the case on merits after trial. Subject to the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed." 13(v). While dealing with validity of bail order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated that the criminal antecedents were not much relevant in case, no prima facie case was made out and the period of incarceration was prolonged, in Ayub Khan versus State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, in the following terms:-
"9. The principles to be followed while deciding on a bail application are well settled. If Trial Courts commit errors while deciding bail applications, the same can always be corrected on the judicial side by the Courts, which are higher in the judicial hierarchy. The Constitutional Courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail. However, the Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of our Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications. What the High Court has done in paragraph 9 in the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore is that it has made it mandatory for the Trial Courts to incorporate a chart containing details of the antecedents of the accused who applies for bail.
10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for
- 41 - 2025:HHC:3002 bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. If the directions in the case of Jugal Kishore are to be strictly implemented, the Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format.
11. When the prosecution places on record material showing antecedents of the accused, and if the Court concludes that looking at the facts of the case and the nature of antecedents, the accused should be denied bail on the ground of antecedents, it is not necessary for the Court to incorporate all the details of the antecedents as required by paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore. The Court may only refer to the nature of the offences registered against the accused by referring to penal provisions under which the accused has been charged."
13(vi). Pendency of other criminal cases cannot
- 42 - 2025:HHC:3002 be invoked for denying bail, when, no prima facie case exists and prolonged incarceration was writ large, has been mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270, in the following terms:-
"46. The Investigating Agency have also referred to ECIR No. 4 as a criminal antecedent. A reference was made to ECIR No. 4 of 2022 pertaining to illegal Stone Mining and related activities in Saheb Ganj, Jharkhand, where the petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2022 and the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.09.2022. Insofar as the bail pertaining to ECIR No. 4 of 2022, which is pending in this Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 691 of 2023, at the after notice stage, the merits of the bail in that case will be independently examined. Having examined the facts of the present case arising out of ECIR No. 5 of 2023 and in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, we do not think that the appellant can be denied bail based on the pendency of the other matter. We say so in the facts and circumstances of the present case as we do not find any justification for his continued detention. The appellant has already been in custody for over one year. The Trial is yet to commence. There is a reference to one more ECIR which the Investigating Agency refers to in their counter, namely, ECIR /RNZO /18 / 2022 but nothing is available from the record as to whether any proceedings have been
- 43 - 2025:HHC:3002 taken against the appellant.
49. In the result, we pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is quashed and set-aside.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to release the appellant on bail in connection with ED case No. ECIR No. 5 of 2023 on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.5 lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount."
In facts of instant case, the plea of Learned State Counsel is examined and the plea is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that firstly, the veracity of the accusation is yet to be tested examined and proved during the trial; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2023 and is undergoing incarceration for almost 1 year; 3 months and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time when out of total 23 PWs only 4 PWs have been examined as yet ; and fourthly, delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner ; and fifthly, an accused is presumed to
- 44 - 2025:HHC:3002 be innocent unless proven guilty ; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on 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 ; and ninthly, even the State Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him earlier; and lastly, the State Authorities have adequate safeguards by moving the Courts for cancellation of bail in case there was any violation of or misuse of the concession- liberty and once the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial therefore, in these circumstances, the past criminal antecedents or
- 45 - 2025:HHC:3002 pendency of other cases as discussed above cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, so as to deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, on totality of circumstances, the claim of petitioner for bail carries weight and is granted, in peculiar facts of this case.
TRIAL TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME:
14. Status Report suggest that prosecution intends to examine 23 PWs and only 4 PWs have been examined but still trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, this Court feels it appropriate not to detain the petitioner any longer [who has been implicated for Intermediate Quantity, which is yet to be proved during trial therefore, the prayer of petitioner for bail is accepted.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:
- 46 - 2025:HHC:3002 15. Status Reports filed by State Authorities
have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. In these circumstances, plea for bail carries weight and is accepted.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTING JUSTICE:
16. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any cogent material, to show that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner and in absence thereof the plea for bail has merit in this bail order.
NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR COURT:
- 47 - 2025:HHC:3002
17. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State [despite the fact that nothing has been placed on record that petitioner may flee away], yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court imposes stringent conditions in later part of this order.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:
18. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law, as referred to above, and in the peculiar facts of this case, the instant petition is allowed, and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Sumit Sharma] on bail, subject to observance of the following conditions:-
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Sumit Sharma] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- {Rs Fifty Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar bond amount each, to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court concerned;
(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;
- 48 - 2025:HHC:3002 (iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall
abet the commission of any offence hereinafter.
Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ;
(v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court;
(vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, nearest to his native place, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11 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;
(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;
(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 in this order.;
- 49 - 2025:HHC:3002
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 verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court.
21. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur for information and necessary action in terms of this order.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
January 15, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma)
™. Judge.