Rinku Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner namely Rinku Kumar, who is behind bars since 09.02.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 21/2026, dated 09.02.2026, under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

Respondent-State has filed the status report and SI Hari Singh, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 09.02.2026 at 4:25 PM, police, which at the relevant time, was present near Majherna Chowk, Pukhurda, National Highway 154, Paprola, intercepted one white coloured (applied for, No. TO925HP7734) Alto K10 car, for checking. Since person sitting in the car got perplexed after having seen the police and started making excuses, police after having associated independent witnesses, conducted search of the vehicle as well as car and allegedly recovered 6.10 grams of chitta/heroin from beneath the footmat of driver seat. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record for possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove ,and since then the bail petitioner is behind 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.

While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of 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 bail petitioner is a drug peddler and as such in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. To substantiate his aforesaid claim, learned Additional Advocate General invited attention of this Court to the status report to state that in past, one case under the NDPS Act already stands registered against the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than seven months and till date, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail.

No doubt in past one case under NDPS Act stands registered against the bail petitioner, but having regard to the quantity of contraband recovered in that case, this Court is not persuaded to conclude that bail petitioner is a drug peddler, rather it appears that bail petitioner, who is a 30 years old person, has become a drug addict and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to keep him behind bars for an indefinite period during trial, rather he needs to be provided immediate medical assistance so that he is brought back to the mainstream at the earliest.

Moreover, considerable time is likely to be consumed in trial and as such, in case petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail during trial, it may not only amount to pre trial conviction, but would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is not permissible.

Leaving everything aside, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband.

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency. Apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

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 will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

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. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with following conditions:

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.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.