Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 16.01.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 January, 2026
2026:HHC:3367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 72 of 2026
Reserved on: 16.01.2026
Date of Decision: 23.1.2026.
Rahul Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 45 of 2025, dated 22.03.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 105 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023, at the police station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
2026:HHC:3367
2. It has been asserted that the police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the above mentioned FIR based on a disclosure statement made by the co-accused, Aman Kumar, who had died due to a drug overdose. The petitioner has no connection to his death. Police have filed a charge sheet, and the matter is listed for the prosecution's evidence. The Trial is not progressing, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that he was residing in the under-construction house of Ritik Sahota @ Sunny. He returned to his room on 20.03.2025 at about 8:00 p.m. He found a boy lying in the room. The informant tried to wake the boy up, but the boy did not respond. The informant slept. He found in the morning that the boy was unconscious. The matter was reported to the police. The police found a dead body. ATM Cards in the names of Aman and Sunita were found 3 2026:HHC:3367 in the dead body's rear pants pocket. One driving license in the name of Akram Khan and another in the name of Yusuf Khan were also found. The bank revealed that the ATM card was issued in the name of Aman, son of Prithvi. The residents of the house were called, who identified the dead body as that of Aman. Jiwan, brother of Aman, made a statement that Aman was a drug addict. He was missing since 20.03.2025. The police recovered four syringes from the spot. Two had caps, and others were without any caps. The police seized the syringes. Sunita, the mother of Aman, revealed that Rahul and another person had accompanied Aman. She also saw Aman and Rahul Chaudhary going towards Badripur at 3-3:30. Calls were made to Aman, but his phone was found to be switched off. The police investigated the matter and found that Yusuf Khan had injected the drugs into Aman. He had also taken away his mobile phone. The police arrested Rahul Chaudhary and Yusuf Khan. The viscera and the syringes recovered from the spot were sent to SFSL, Junga, for analysis. The report of analysis mentions that Pheniramine, Lidocaine and Cotinine were detected in the viscera. Acetaminophen, Caffeine, Phiramine, 6-acetylcodeine, 6- acetylmorphine, trimethoprim, heroin and alprazolam were 4 2026:HHC:3367 detected in the syringes. The challan was filed before the Court, and the matter is listed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, for recording statements of prosecution evidence on 16.04.2026 and 17.04.2026. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
5. Mr Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence to connect him to the commission of a crime. The Police have filed a charge-sheet, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. His custody is not required for investigation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had administered the drugs to the deceased, which led to his death. Drugs are adversely affecting the young generation, and their 5 2026:HHC:3367 use should be viewed seriously. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: -
(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elabo-
rating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be consid- ered while granting bail, which are extracted as under:
(SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) "7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant juris-
diction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England" (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 -- Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfer- 6 2026:HHC:3367 ing with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise pol- luting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be ex- tracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary man- ner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in sup- port thereof, the severity of the punishment which convic- tion will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the pres- ence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of grant- ing the bail the legislature has used the words "reason- able grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence"
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied) 7 2026:HHC:3367
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) "3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a ju- dicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is de- pendent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justi- fying the grant of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under
with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors 8 2026:HHC:3367 which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or reject- ing bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic prin- ciples laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circum- stances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(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 convic- tion;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if re- leased on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and ca-
sual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC On- Line Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the ac- cused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Ku- 9
2026:HHC:3367 mar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) "35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexa- tious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the na- ture of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an ac- cused." (emphasis supplied)
9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The report of analysis shows that only Pheniramine was found in the viscera, the blood of the deceased and the syringes. The other drugs found in the viscera, the blood of the deceased, and the syringes were different. This, prima facie, falsifies the prosecution's case that the drugs contained in the syringes were administered to the deceased because, in such an eventuality, the drugs found in the syringes would have also been found in the blood and viscera of the deceased. 10
2026:HHC:3367
11. The status report shows that the police have filed the charge sheet. The matter is listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan District, Sirmour H.P., for prosecution evidence on 16.04.2026 and 17.04.2026. The investigation is complete, and the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. The status report also does not show the necessity of the petitioner's pre-trial detention.
12. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of district Sirmour, H.P. This was not stated to be incorrect. The status report does not show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Therefore, there is no impediment to granting bail to the petitioner.
13. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution's evidence. This apprehension is insufficient to deny bail to the petitioner, as it can be removed by imposing conditions. The police are always at liberty to approach the Court in case they find that the petitioner has violated any condition imposed upon him.
14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his 11 2026:HHC:3367 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.
(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
15. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central 12 2026:HHC:3367 Jail Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P and the learned Trial Court through FASTER.
17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Vacation Judge
23rd January,2026 (meera) CHANDER
Digitally signed by
CHANDER
SHEKHAR
SHEKHAR Date: 2026.01.23
17:03:46 +0530