____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 March, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 March, 2025

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.251 of 2025
Reserved on: 10.03.2025
Announced on: 13.03.2025
____________________________________________________________
Prikshit Dhani ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent

For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Anubhav Chopra & Mr. Bhairav Gupta,
Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate
General.

____________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? No.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Bail petitioner [Prikshit Dhani], being in custody

05.04.2024, has come up before this Court, seeking

regular bail, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as BNSS]

origination from FIR No.21 of 2024, dated 14.2.2024,

under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act [in short the NDPS Act]

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Case as set by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned

Senior Counsel is that petitioner has been falsely

implicated and there is no evidence to connect the

petitioner with the accusation and the petitioner is

a young man belonging to a respectable family.

2(i). It is averred that though the alleged recovery

was made from petitioner – Prikshit Dhani, weighing

12.06 grams, which is an Intermediate Quantity.

2(ii). Bail petitioner has undertaken that he shall

not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any

person acquainted with the facts of the case with the

further undertaking that he shall abide by all the

terms and conditions as may be imposed by this

Court. It is averred that the bail petitioner has filed

an application for bail which was dismissed by Learned

Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge-II), Shimla

on 13.3.2024 [Annexure P-1]; and the second bail
-3-
( 2025:HHC:6128 )

application Cr.MP(M) No. 577 of 2024 was dismissed

on 27.3.2024 [Annexure P-2] and the third bail petition

was dismissed on 21.1.2025 [Annexure P-3]. It is

averred that rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

are not attracted and once four other co-accused have

been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.1.2025 by

this Court and orders dated 21.01.2025 passed by

Learned Special Judge, [as stated in Para 9 of bail

petition], therefore, in this background, the petitioner

may be enlarged on bail.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 13.02.2025,

State Authorities have filed Status Report dated

28.02.2025.

3(i). Perusal of Status Report indicates that

on 14.2.2024, while police party was on patrolling

duty at about 2:30 PM, a vehicle bearing No.

HP-63C-5463 reached near Ekant Vatika, on the bye-

pass, the petitioner [Prikshit Dhani], on noticing the

police became perplexed and threw a polythene, which
-4-
( 2025:HHC:6128 )

was taken into custody by police, which was found

to be containing 28 bundles (pudia), wrapped in foil

paper, which on weighing, turned out to be 12.06

Grams of Chitta/Heroin. Pursuant to this recovery,

the petitioner [Prikshit Dhani] was arrested on

14.02.2024.

3(ii). Status Report further indicates that CDRs

and Bank Transaction Records [BTR’s] of petitioner

[Prikshit Dhani] reveal that he has made calls with

other co-accused and monetary transaction of about

Rs.9,00,000/- [Rupees Nine Lacs] between the bail

petitioner and other co-accused from October, 2023

to February, 2024.

3(iii). Status Report indicates that petitioner has

joined investigation and now the Challan-Final Police

Report has been presented before jurisdictional Court

and 31 witnesses are to be examined, out of which

6 PWs have been examined and the matter is fixed

for Prosecution Evidence on 29.03.2025.

4. Heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior
-5-
( 2025:HHC:6128 )

Counsel with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, and

Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General

for the Respondent-State.

MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL:

5. Broad parameters have been mandated by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the

cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of

Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay

versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7

SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish

Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P.

Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement,

(2019) 9 SCC 24, Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT

Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani

(2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus

Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail

is to be granted where the allegations are frivolous

or groundless and incase neither any prima facie
-6-
( 2025:HHC:6128 )

case nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point

towards the accusation. However, depending upon the

facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case,

the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and

if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment

including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away

from investigation and trial and the character, past

antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing

of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated;

reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced

and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of

bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession

of bail.

5(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal

No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus

Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023

held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a

Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but

by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in

the light of broad-parameters referred to above.
-7-

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:

6. Taking into account the entirety of facts

and circumstances and the material on record as

is borne out from Status Report(s), this Court is of

the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Prikshit

Dhani], is entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following

reasons:-

NO PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE BAIL
PETITIONER:

6(i). Status Report indicates that on 14.2.2024,

while police party was on patrolling duty at about

2:30 PM, a vehicle bearing No.HP-63C-5463 reached near

Ekant Vatika, on the bye-pass, when, the petitioner

[Prikshit Dhani] on noticing the police, became perplexed

and he threw a polythene, which was found to be

containing 28 bundles (pudia), wrapped in foil paper,

which on weighing, turned out to be 12.06 Grams of

Chitta/Heroin. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested.

In the above backdrop, the accusation as contained in

the F.I.R as to whether the alleged contraband was in

fact recovered and was intended to be sold, alleging an
-8-
( 2025:HHC:6128 )

offence under Section 21 of the NDPS, Act is a matter to

be tested, examined and proved during the trial.

6(ii). Likewise, the accusation under Section 29

of NDPS Act alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy

is a matter which is to be tested, examined and proved

on by way of evidence during the trial. The continued

detention alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy

without there being any cogent material on record,

certainly amounts to incarcerating the petitioner by

way of punishment is impermissible; and in these

circumstances, the prayer for bail has merit.

INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

7. While reiterating the principle that bail is

a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can

be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation

and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the

eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined

the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan
-9-
( 2025:HHC:6128 )

Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1242, in the following terms:-

“11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40,
while hearing a bail Application in a case
of an alleged economic offence, this court
held that the object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. It was observed
as under:

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest
times that the 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. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure that
an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every
man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.

23. Apart from the question of prevention
being the object of refusal of
bail, one must not lose sight of
the fact that any imprisonment
before conviction has a substantial
punitive content and it would be
improper for any court to refuse
bail as a mark of disapproval
of former conduct whether the
accused has been convicted for
it or not or to refuse bail to
an unconvicted person for the

– 10 –

                                  ( 2025:HHC:6128 )

              purpose of giving him a           taste
              of imprisonment as a lesson.

25. The provisions of Cr PC confer
discretionary jurisdiction on criminal
courts to grant bail to the accused
pending trial or in appeal against
convictions; since the jurisdiction
is discretionary, it has to be
exercised with great care and
caution by balancing the valuable
right of liberty of an individual
and the interest of the society
in general. In our view, the reasoning
adopted by the learned District
Judge, which is affirmed by the
High Court, in our opinion, is a
denial of the whole basis of our
system of law and normal rule
of bail system. It transcends
respect for the requirement that
a man shall be considered
innocent until he is found guilty.
If such power is recognised, then
it may lead to chaotic situation
and would jeopardise the personal
liberty of an individual.

27. This Court, time and again, has
stated that bail is the rule and
committal to jail an exception. It
has also observed that refusal
of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution.”

12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.

National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000)
2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a
bail application held that conditions for
grant of bail cannot become so onerous
that their existence itself is tantamount

– 11 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

to refusal of bail. This Court held as
under:

“We are unable to appreciate even the
first order passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate imposing the onerous
condition that an accused at the FIR
stage should pay a huge sum of Rs.
2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had
paid it is a different matter. But the
fact that he was not able to pay
that amount and in default thereof
he is to languish in jail for more
than 10 months now, is sufficient
indication that he was unable to make
up the amount. Can he be detained
in custody endlessly for his inability
to pay the amount in the range of
Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by
his surety were dishonoured, the Court
could perhaps have taken it as a
ground to suggest to the payee of
the cheques to resort to the legal
remedies provided by law.

Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied
with the conduct of the surety as for
his failure to raise funds for honouring
the cheques issued by him, the Court
could have directed the appellant to
substitute him with another surety.
But to keep him in prison for such
a long period, that too in a case
where bail would normally be granted
for the offences alleged, is not only
hard but improper. It must be
remembered that the Court has not
even come to the conclusion that the
allegations made in the FIR are true.
That can be decided only when the
trial concludes, if the case is charge-
sheeted by the police.”

REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL:

– 12 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

8. While dealing with the concept of bail and

the right of an accused for speedy trial and deprivation

thereof curtails the personal liberty of an accused under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of

2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State

of Maharashtra and Another, as under:-

“18 Criminals are not born out but made. The
human potential in everyone is good and so,
never write off any criminal as beyond
redemption. This humanist fundamental is
often missed when dealing with
delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed,
every saint has a past and every sinner a
future. When a crime is committed, a
variety of factors is responsible for making
the offender commit the crime. Those
factors may be social and economic, may be,
the result of value erosion or parental
neglect; may be, because of the stress
of circumstances, or the manifestation of
temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted
with indigence or other privations.

19. 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.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime.

– 13 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner
is still an accused; not a convict. The over-
arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence
that an accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty cannot be
brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent
the penal law may be.

21 We are convinced that the manner in which
the prosecuting agency as well as the Court
have proceeded, the right of the accused
to have a speedy trial could be said to
have been infringed thereby violating
Article 21 of the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds
and is hereby allowed. The impugned
order passed by the High Court is set
aside.”

BAIL NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY WAY OF PENALTY:

ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:

9. While dealing with a matter relating to

prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial

and right of liberty to be sacrosanct right and while

deprecating that the bail is not to be withheld as

punishment so as to operate de hors the principle

that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate

of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024,

decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under :-

“49. We find that, on account of a long
period of incarceration running for around

– 14 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

17 months and the trial even not having
been commenced, the appellant has been
deprived of his right to speedy trial.

50. As observed by this Court, the right to
speedy trial and the right to liberty are
sacrosanct rights. On denial of these
rights, the trial court as well as the High
Court ought to have given due weightage
to this factor.

52. The Court also reproduced the observations
made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra),
which read thus:

“10. In the aforesaid context, we may
remind the trial courts and the High
Courts of what came to be observed
by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu
v. Public Prosecutor, High Court
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We
quote:

“What is often forgotten, and therefore
warrants reminder, is the object to
keep a person in judicial custody
pending trial or disposal of an
appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R
v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:

“I observe that in this case bail
was refused for the prisoner. It
cannot be too strongly impressed
on the, magistracy of the country
that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment, but that the
requirements as to bail are merely
to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial””

53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the
High Courts have forgotten a very well-
settled principle of law that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. From our
experience, we can say that it appears that
the trial courts and the High Courts attempt
to play safe in matters of grant of bail.
The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed
in breach. On account of non-grant of
bail even in straight forward open and
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge

– 15 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

number of bail petitions thereby adding
to the huge pendency. It is high time
that the trial courts and the High
Courts should recognize the principle that
“bail is rule and jail is exception”.

55. As observed by this Court in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective
to keep a person in judicial custody
pending trial or disposal of an appeal
is to secure the attendance of the prisoner
at trial.

56. In the present case, the appellant is having
deep roots in the society. There is no
possibility of him fleeing away from the
country and not being available for facing
the trial. In any case, conditions can be
imposed to address the concern of the
State.

57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the
learned ASG regarding the possibility of
tampering the evidence is concerned, it is
to be noted that the case largely
depends on documentary evidence which
is already seized by the prosecution. As
such, there is no possibility of tampering
with the evidence. Insofar as the concern
with regard to influencing the witnesses
is concerned, the said concern can be
addressed by imposing stringent conditions
upon the appellant.”

10. While adjudicating the claim for bail, even

under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS

Act], the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

No._____of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal)

No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla

Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and

connected matter has mandated that fundamental

– 16 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is superior to the statutory

restrictions, in the following terms:-

“13. We had also reiterated the well-established
principle that “bail is the rule and refusal
is an exception”. We had further observed
that the fundamental right of liberty
provided under Article 21 of the Constitution
is superior to the statutory restrictions.”

PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND INFRINGMENT
OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

11. While reiterating the grant of bail, despite

statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024

(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled

as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of

Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC

Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating

the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India to be of paramount importance

and action of prolonging the incarceration so as to

make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated

by granting bail, in the following terms:-

– 17 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

“13. We have considered the rival submissions
and carefully examined the material on
record. At the outset, it is worth reiterating
that this Court, through a catena of
decisions, has consistently emphasized that
prolonged incarceration of an accused
awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their
right to personal liberty. Even statutory
embargoes on the grant of bail must
yield when weighed against the
paramount importance of the right to life
and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution, particularly in cases where
such incarceration extends over an
unreasonably long period without
conclusion of trial.

17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the
settled principles that a suspect cannot be
held in custody indefinitely and that
undertrial incarceration should not
amount to punitive detention. The Court
would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or
influential accused do not obstruct the
ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence,
or influence witnesses, namely, actions that
undermine the fundamental doctrine of
a fair trial.

18. Striking a balance between these
considerations and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the allegations,
we deem it appropriate to dispose of this
appeal with the following directions:

f. The Petitioner shall thereafter be
released on bail on 01.02.2025, subject
to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court; ……”

Prolonged detention of petitioner, in facts

of this case, shall certainly amount to depriving and

– 18 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

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. Detention of the petitioner can neither be

punitive nor preventative, so as to make the

petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial

of bail shall certainly violate the principle that “bail

is rule and jail is an exception”. Even, the State

Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and

still considerable time is likely to be taken for

conclusion of trial. Therefore, in view of the mandate

of law the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight.

CDR’S AND BTRS CANNOT FORM BASIS
FOR PROLONGING INCARCERATION WHEN
INVESTIGATION COMPLETE AND CHALLAN FILED
AND RECORDING OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
COMMENCED:

12. CDRs and Bank Transactions though can

be of some relevance for the purpose of investigation

but once investigation is complete and Challan has

been filed, then, in such an eventuality prolongation

of detention shall certainly tantamount to violating

– 19 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

the personal liberty of bail petitioner as mandated in

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, in

facts of instant case, further detention/prolongation

cannot be permitted and moreover when the material

in CDRs and BTR’s (Bank Transaction Records] are to be

tested, examined and proved during trial. In these

circumstances, the claim for bail, needs to be accepted

and is ordered accordingly.

CLAIM FOR ENLARGEMENT ON BAIL ON
PRINCIPLE OF PARITY:

13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

asserts that four other co-accused, namely, Vikram,

Rakshit Chauhan were enlarged on bail vide orders dated

10.01.2025 passed by this Court and two other

co-accused, namely, Abhay Chauhan and Aditya

Chauhan were enlarged on bail by Learned Special Judge

on 21.01.2025.

Learned State Counsel has not been able to

show as to how the role of petitioner Prikshit Dhani is

different from other four co-accused who were alleged to

– 20 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

be accused of Section 21 and 29 of NDPS Act. Thus,

once the role of petitioner is akin to other co-accused,

who have been enlarged on bail, therefore, in these

circumstances the claim for bail carries weight and is

accepted.

PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:

14. Learned Senior Counsel prays for bail on

the ground that the petitioner has no past criminal

antecedents. Above contention of Learned Senior

Counsel for petitioner is not disputed by Learned State

Counsel also. In these circumstances, the claim of

petitioner deserves to be accepted in facts of this case.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING
WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

15. Status Reports filed by State Authorities

have neither pointed out cogent and convincing

material revealing adversarial circumstances that

after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper

with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or

promise to any person or persons acquainted with

– 21 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if

any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded,

by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING
OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE :

16. Status Reports filed by State Authorities

have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances

nor placed on record any cogent and convincing

material on record to infer that after release on

bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause

of justice in any manner. In absence of any material,

the plea for bail deserves to be granted to the

petitioner in the instant case.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING
AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT:

17. In order to safeguard the rights of bail

petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State

that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding

the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed

out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this

– 22 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail

orders, in later part of this order.

CONCLUSION:

18. In the facts of instant case, the plea of

petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that

firstly, prima facie prosecution story appears to

be highly doubtful and improbable at this stage as

discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status

Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody

since 05.04.2024 and is undergoing incarceration

for about 11 months; and thirdly, conclusion of

trial is likely to take considerable time when out

of total 31 PWs only 6 PWs have been examined

as yet; and fourthly, the delay in trial is not

attributable to the petitioner; and fifthly, an accused

is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty;

and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be

punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued

detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by

presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly,

– 23 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent

and convincing material that after release on bail there

is possibility of accused fleeing away from the

trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses

or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the

State Authorities have not placed anything on record

to show that petitioner has misused liberty granted

to him earlier; and tenthly, the petitioner has no

past criminal antecedents; lastly, in order to safeguard

the interests of the State vis-à-vis the right of petitioner

this Court imposes stringent condition(s) in this order;

and in case of any violation of or misuse of the

concession-liberty, the State Authority can seek

cancellation of concession extended to the petitioner.

Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct

fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of

speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of

facts and circumstances and the mandate of law as

referred to above, the claim of the petitioner for

– 24 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

enlargement on bail carries weight, in the peculiar facts-

situation of this case, as discussed above.

DIRECTIONS:

19. Taking into account the entirety of the facts

and the material on record and the mandate of law,

as referred to above and in the peculiar facts of

the instant matters, the instant petition is allowed,

and the State Authorities are directed to release the

petitioner [Prikshit Dhani] on bail, subject to the

observance of the following conditions:-

(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release
bail petitioner [Prikshit Dhani] on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.75,000/- {Rs Seventy Five
Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar
bond amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned
Trial Court concerned;

(ii) Petitioner shall undertake and shall also appear
on every date of trial hereinafter;

(iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other
condition(s), which may be imposed by the
Learned Trial Court, in view of this order;

(iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall
abet the commission of any offence hereinafter.

Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting
thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of
bail granted in terms of this order ;

(v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/
WhatsApp number and that of his surety
to the Learned Trial Court;

– 25 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

(vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the
Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station
concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 08.00
a.m., only for having an update on good conduct
and behaviour;

(vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and
also shall not leave the country without the
prior information of the Court;

(viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence
in any manner;

(ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement,
threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to
witnesses of any other person acquainted with
the case;

(x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of
any condition contained hereinabove, if need
arises;

(xi) State Authorities are free to move this Court
for seeking alteration/modification of any of
the condition contained in this order or any
condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court
as a sequel to this order, in fact situation
of instant case or circumstances so necessitate,
at any time herein-after;

(xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court
for seeking cancellation of the concession of
bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of
the conditions contained in this order.;

20. Observations made in this judgment shall

not be construed in any manner as an indictive of

findings, for or against the parties herein, either for

the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall

– 26 –

( 2025:HHC:6128 )

proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of

the observations contained hereinabove.

21. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy

of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities

concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist

for production of a certified copy, but if required, may

verify about the passing of this order from the Website

of this Court.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
13th March, 2025
(tm)