Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that the prolonged incarceration of an accused without the commencement of trial violated the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail while imposing specific conditions. The Court noted that the accused had been in custody for over one year and nine months and that the quantity of contraband involved, though of intermediate quantity, did not justify continued detention given the delay in trial proceedings.

The Court made it clear that no witness had been examined despite the passage of considerable time since filing the charge sheet. In light of this, the Court found merit in the bail application and ordered the petitioner’s release with conditions to ensure presence during trial and prevent interference with the judicial process. The Court further held that this order shall not affect the merits of the case and is confined solely to the bail determination. The Trial Court and Jail authorities were instructed to act promptly based on the uploaded judgment to expedite the release process.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Dignity In Divorce | Divorced Wife Who Remained Unmarried Entitled To Maintain Marital Standard Of Living

The petitioner filed a bail application seeking regular bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The FIR in question was No. 87 of 2023, dated 31.07.2023, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was arrested under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration number HP-63A-5557 during a patrol and recovered 16.01 grams of heroin.

The petitioner was seated in the front passenger seat, with one Vipul identified as the driver. Two other individuals were seated in the back. The petitioner claimed innocence and contended that he had no connection with the contraband. He submitted that he was falsely implicated and had been in custody since his arrest on 31.07.2023. He further asserted that no witnesses had been examined despite the filing of the charge sheet and that the co-accused had already been granted bail.

In its status report, the State asserted that secret information had been received about a vehicle transporting heroin. This information was reduced to writing and shared with the Supervisory Officer. The subsequent search of the vehicle, conducted in the presence of witnesses, led to the recovery of 16.01 grams of heroin. The individuals present in the vehicle were identified as Vipul (driver), Yashpal (petitioner, seated in front), and Anmol and Paramjeet (in the back seat). All occupants were arrested, and the investigation ensued.

The State submitted that the charge sheet was filed on 26.09.2023 and cited a total of twenty-three witnesses. Notices had been issued to the co-accused for 29.05.2025, but no witnesses had been examined to date. The State also disclosed the petitioner’s criminal history, including pending FIRs No. 102 of 2022 and No. 108 of 2020. Furthermore, the petitioner had been convicted in FIR No. 58 of 2021 by the Special Judge, Shimla (Forests), on 12.08.2024 and sentenced to four years of imprisonment.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prolonged custody without progress in the trial amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. He cited that not even a single witness had been examined and the trial had not commenced. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had criminal antecedents and was likely to reoffend if released on bail.

The Court noted that an earlier bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 10 of 2024 had been dismissed on 07.03.2024. It referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions, including State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, State of M.P. v. Kajad, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, and State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, stating that successive bail applications require a substantial change in circumstances.

"The present bail petition can only be considered on the basis of the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court."

The Court acknowledged that the delay in trial proceedings constituted a substantial change in circumstance. The judgment cited Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) to assert that: "The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right of an accused. The right of bail is curtailed on the premise that the trial would be concluded expeditiously."

It further cited Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India to record: "If such a finding is not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time, some relief becomes necessary."

The Court observed that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for over one year and nine months, with no witness examined, despite twenty-three having been cited. It recorded: "Keeping in view the quantity stated to have been found in possession of the petitioner, the failure to conclude the trial within one year and nine months assumes significance and justifies the plea of the petitioner that his right to a speedy trial is being violated."

The Bench quoted Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, observing: "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."

In light of the delay, the Court stated: "The petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than one year and nine months. The trial has not yet commenced, and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial."

While acknowledging the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the Court referred to Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan to hold: "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."

The Court directed that:

"The present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court."

The Court further ordered that while on bail, the petitioner shall abide by the following terms and conditions:

"The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever."

"The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments."

"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, the Police Station concerned, and the Trial Court."

"The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court."

"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."

The Court stated: "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."

Also Read: Meghalaya High Court Rejects Bail In NDPS Case Over Defective Sampling | Says Cited Authorities 'Relevant But Not Basis For Grant Of Bail'

Additionally, it directed that: "A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Solan, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER."

"The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case."

"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 the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Sharol, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Yash Pal Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:17295

Case Number: Cr. MP (M) No. 1103 of 2025

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla

[Read/Download order]