Cannot Deny Bail Merely Because Accused Is Resident Of Another State: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that an accused cannot be refused bail merely because he belongs to a different State or country, observing that such a ground has no place in criminal jurisprudence when statutory conditions for bail are otherwise satisfied.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that bail cannot be denied on the ground that an accused is a resident of another State.
The Court was hearing a petition for regular bail filed in connection with a case registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, relating to the alleged recovery of poppy straw.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while relying on a previous judgment of the Court, observed that “the petitioner cannot be denied bail simply because he is a resident of a different State.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Hitender Verma, and the State was represented by Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Background
An FIR was registered on secret information alleging that the petitioner was carrying opium poppy husk in his vehicle. The police searched and allegedly recovered three packets weighing a total of 7.033 kg. The material was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed that the samples were poppy straw. The petitioner was arrested and has been in custody since July 2025.
The State opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner may abscond or intimidate witnesses. It was argued that because he belonged to another State, there was a likelihood that he would flee.
The petitioner argued that the recovered quantity was less than the commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, he had no criminal antecedents, and no further recovery was required.
Court’s Observation
The Himachal Pradesh High Court examined the parameters for granting bail, relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025) and Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh. It held that the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the risk of absconding, the chances of tampering with evidence, and the individual's criminal antecedents are all relevant concerns.
The Bench found that the recovered quantity was intermediate, not commercial, and therefore the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
Further, the Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that bail must be denied because the petitioner was from another State. The Bench cited its earlier decision in Collins v. State of H.P., in which it was held that “the provision of local surety is nowhere mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and surety can be from any part of the country or without.”
The Court stressed that such a factor is irrelevant, noting that even foreign nationals have been granted bail subject to conditions like cash security, passport surrender, and travel restrictions.
The Court also held that there was nothing to show that continued detention was necessary. The charge sheet had already been filed, and the petitioner had no criminal history. The Court further noted that apprehension of influencing witnesses could be addressed through appropriate conditions.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the bail petition and directed the release of the petitioner on a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with surety, subject to conditions including regular court appearance, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, surrender of passport, furnishing of contact details, and travel information in case of relocation.
Cause Title: Ugma Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:35461)
Appearances
Petitioner: M/s Yug Singhal & Hitender Verma, Advocates
Respondent: Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
