Vijender vs State of HP

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 257 of 2023, dated 8.11.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a naka on 8.11.2023, at 1:15 PM, near Mandi Bharari towards Swarghat for checking the vehicles. The police stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-11C-929. The occupants of the vehicle appeared to be frightened, and the police joined Roop Lal as an independent witness. The driver identified himself as Pradeep Kumar. The person sitting in the front seat revealed his names as Nittu, and the persons sitting in the rear seat revealed their name as Satish and Vijender (the petitioner). The police recovered 3.670 kg of charas from the vehicle. The police completed the formalities and arrested the occupants. The petitioner is currently lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 18.5.2026 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to ensure a speedy trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr. MP(M) No. 2325 of 2025 and was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.1.2026. FIR No. 279 of 2014 and FIR No.199 of 2018 were registered against the petitioner. FIR No. 279 of 2014 is pending, and the petitioner was acquitted in FIR No. 199 of 2018. Hence, the present petition.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police had set up a nakka at Patta Four Lane on 8.11.2023. They stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-11C-9294 at 1.45 PM. The police asked the driver to produce the documents of the vehicle. The driver and other occupants appeared to be frightened. The police associated Roop Lal and enquired about the names of the occupants of the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Pradeep Kumar. The person sitting in the front seat revealed his name as Nittu, and the person sitting in the rear seat revealed their name as Satish and Vijender (the petitioner). The police searched the vehicle and recovered 3.670 kilograms of cannabis. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. As per the result of the analysis, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 04.05.2024. 10 witnesses out of 17 witnesses cited by the prosecution, have been examined. No other case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has released the co-accused Nittu on bail in SLP (Crl.) No. 1404 of 2026, decided on 2.4.2026. This Court has also released the co-accused Satish on bail in Cr.MP(M) No. 573 of 2026, decided on 29.4.2026. The petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is likely to indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

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

In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating 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 considered 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 a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction 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.]

Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting 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 oflences 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)

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 extracted 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 manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence 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 granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable 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)

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 judicious 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 dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the oflence 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)

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 justifying the grant of bail.

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 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 rejecting 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 principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, 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 oflence;

(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 oflence 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

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 casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (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 vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record 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 nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the oflence(s) alleged against an accused." (emphasis supplied)

Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:

The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime...."

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioner was occupying the vehicle with the co-accused Nittu, who was released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that he had suffered incarceration since 13.11.2023, and the trial was nowhere near conclusion. The petitioner was arrested on 8.11.2023 as per the status report. If the co-accused arrested on 13.11.2023 was held entitled to bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial, the petitioner would also be entitled to bail on a similar ground on the principle of parity.

The submissions made on behalf of the State that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case will not help the State because the petitioner is seeking bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 166: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, that the grant of bail on the ground of delay in the progress of trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the co-accused, and the bail cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that he has not satisfied the twin conditions. This would violate the principle of parity in the present case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed in Nittu (supra) that he is to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. Since the bail is being granted to the petitioner on the principle of parity; therefore, similar conditions are to be imposed by the learned Trial Court on the petitioner as well.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the conditions as the learned Trial Court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, HP 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.