Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, Single Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma, issued an order granting bail to a petitioner accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The order, pronounced on 11th April 2025, held that prolonged incarceration exceeding one year and ten months, coupled with the absence of prima facie evidence suggesting guilt, warranted the grant of bail, despite the case involving a commercial quantity of contraband.

The petitioner, Missu Ram, had been in judicial custody since 19 May 2023, following his arrest in connection with FIR No. 98 of 2023 registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The case was registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was one of three individuals found in possession of 1.509 kilograms of Charas, which falls under the category of a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

Also Read: “Agreement Is One For Conducting The Business, Not For Creating Deemed Tenancy”: Supreme Court Dismisses Civil Appeal, Flags AI-Generated And Meandering Pleadings

As per the State's submission, on the evening of 18 May 2023, at approximately 9:45 p.m., a police team led by Inspector Gaurav Bhardwaj received a secret tip-off regarding the sale of Charas near Jagarkot Ajay Pal Devta Temple. The police, accompanied by two independent witnesses—Pradhan Shiv Kumar and Up-Pradhan Rovan Lal—proceeded to the site. Inspector Bhardwaj travelled in a private vehicle while the witnesses followed in another vehicle. At around 10:20 p.m., they discovered a white Eon car without registration plates and a black Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration number HP-33A-7650 parked near the temple.

Upon inspection, the vehicle was found to be occupied by three individuals: Tilak Raj (driver's seat), Mehar Singh (co-driver's seat), and Missu Ram (rear seat). According to the police report, a carry bag printed with green and red flowers was found beneath the driver's seat. Upon untying the bag, police claimed to have recovered stick-like black substances which were suspected to be Charas. The seized material was weighed and found to be 1.509 kilograms. Samples were drawn and sealed, and the material was sent for forensic examination to SFSL Junga. Following the recovery, all three occupants of the car were arrested and medically examined.

The final police report was filed before the jurisdictional court on 8 August 2023. At the time of the bail hearing, 14 out of the 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The remaining eight witnesses were still pending examination before the Special Judge-II, Dharamshala.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Missu Ram had been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that the petitioner was merely a rear-seat occupant in the vehicle and that no contraband was found in his conscious possession. It was further contended that no substantial material had been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner was involved in selling or possessing Charas. The petitioner also gave assurances to participate in the ongoing investigation and court proceedings, not to tamper with evidence, and not to contact or influence any witnesses.

The petitioner placed reliance on the grant of bail to co-accused Tilak Raj and Mehar Singh by the same court, arguing for bail on the principle of parity. Copies of the relevant orders granting bail to the co-accused were filed in support.

Justice Ranjan Sharma considered the petition in the context of the statutory limitations imposed by Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. The court recorded, "neither any prima facie case nor any reasonable grounds exist to believe that the bail petitioner is guilty of the offence in the instant case, at this stage." The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were not substantiated by any independent or cogent evidence.

It was further stated that the status report filed by the prosecution did not establish that the petitioner was involved in selling or possessing the recovered contraband. The court recorded that "Status Report filed by the State Authorities does not spell out any material to show that the bail petitioner has resorted to any activities so as to invoke the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS Act, against the petitioner, at this stage."

The court also noted that the charge of conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act was based on a presumption arising from joint occupancy of the vehicle and not supported by any independent material. The court stated, "accusation of abatement or criminal conspiracy cannot be attributed against the bail petitioner without there being any cogent and convincing material on record."

The court stated that mere presence in the vehicle did not automatically imply conscious possession or conspiracy, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence. The court also recorded that no apprehension was raised in the status report about the petitioner tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or repeating the offence if granted bail.

In evaluating the claim for bail, the court cited a series of judgments of the Supreme Court, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002), Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004), P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), which laid down the parameters for grant of bail in serious offences. The court also referenced decisions in Sunil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023), Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), Sohrab Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2024) wherein the Supreme Court granted bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity based on prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress.

The court observed that the petitioner had already spent more than one year and ten months in custody since 19 May 2023, and that trial progress was insufficient. The court recorded, "even trial is likely to take considerable time for the reason, that out of total 22 PWs, 14 PWs have been examined as yet." It further stated, "continued detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial."

Justice Sharma referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recorded, "Detention of the petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson." The order also referenced the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." The court acknowledged that undertrials are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and prolonged pre-trial detention without sufficient cause infringes the right to personal liberty.

The court also observed that both co-accused Tilak Raj and Mehar Singh had already been granted bail in similar circumstances, and noted that "no recovery has been effected from the bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that main accused, has been enlarged on bail, therefore, in these circumstances the claim for bail carries weight and is accepted."

Also Read: “Permission Granted with Conditions”: Madras High Court Allows Indu Makkal Katchi to Garland Ambedkar Statue, Says “Violation Will Be Viewed Seriously”

The court directed that the petitioner, Missu Ram, be "enlarged on bail" subject to strict compliance with the following conditions, as determined and enforced by the learned trial court:

1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond along with two surety bonds of such amount and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the trial court.

2. The petitioner shall appear in person before the trial court on all dates of hearing without fail, unless exempted by a specific order of the court.

3. The petitioner shall not, during the pendency of the trial, leave the territorial jurisdiction of the court or the State of Himachal Pradesh without prior written permission of the trial court.

4. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any contact with any prosecution witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

5. The petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with or attempt to tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating agency.

6. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and shall maintain good behaviour and conduct.

7. The petitioner shall share his contact number and residential address with the Investigating Officer and inform promptly in case of any change thereof.

8. The petitioner shall cooperate fully with the trial process and shall not cause any delay or obstruction in the conclusion of the trial.

It was further directed that "in case of any violation or misuse of the concession-liberty extended to the petitioner, including any breach of the conditions hereinabove, the State Authorities shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate court for cancellation of bail and re-arrest of the petitioner."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Vijender Katoch, Advocate

For the Respondent: Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Missu Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:10266

Case Number: Cr.MP(M) No. 130 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ranjan Sharma

[Read/Download order]