Roop Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

regular bail in FIR No. 69 of 2024, dated 28.05.2024, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

#2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party had laid a naka at Paprola Bazar on 28.05.2024 and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:29056 ) intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-82-7969. The petitioner was driving the car. The police searched the car in the presence of independent witnesses and found 1.08 kg of charas. The prosecution’s case is false. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The prosecution has cited 24 witnesses, out of whom 06 witnesses have been examined. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and it would take a long time for the trial to conclude. The petitioner has been in custody for more than 01 year and 02 months. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

#3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a naka on 28.05.2024 at Paprola Bazar. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-82-7969 came towards the spot which was signalled to stop. The driver identified himself as Roop Lal (the present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle and recovered black sticks of charas. These were weighed and their total weight was found to be 1.08 kg. The charas was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, for analysis, and as per the result of the analysis, it was confirmed to be a sample of charas. No FIR was registered against the petitioner before the present FIR. The prosecution has cited 24 3 ( 2025:HHC:29056 ) witnesses, out of whom 06 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of 03 prosecution witnesses on 01.09.2025. Hence, the status report.

#4. I have heard M/s. Kapil Sharma and Shivanshu, learned counsel, vice Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jatinder K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

#5. Mr. Kapil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is a delay in the progress of the trial. The prosecution has not completed the evidence. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial. He relied upon the judgments in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7115 of 2024, titled Sohrab Khan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 13.08.2024, and Cr. MP(M) No. 362 of 2025, titled Subhkaran Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 21.05.2025, in support of his submission.

#6. Mr. Jatinder K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of 4 ( 2025:HHC:29056 ) the ND&PS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail

#26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 5 ( 2025:HHC:29056 )