Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Justice Kainthla: “The petitioner cannot be denied bail simply because he is a resident of a different State.”
Shimla, Nov 3,
In a judgment reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of equality before law, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that bail cannot be denied merely because an accused is not a native of the State. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while deciding the bail plea of Ugma Ram, held that “the petitioner cannot be denied bail simply because he is a resident of a different State,” adding that the principle of local or regional bias in bail matters has no basis in law.
The order was passed in Cr. MP(M) of 2025, related to an FIR registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Barotiwala, Solan. The police had recovered 7.033 kg of poppy husk from the petitioner’s vehicle on July 28, 2025. Justice Kainthla noted that the seized quantity constituted an intermediate quantity and not a commercial quantity, therefore the “rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.”
The Court observed that the petitioner had no previous criminal antecedents and was a first-time offender. “In case of his continued detention, he would come in contact with hardened criminals, and the chances of his reformation would become bleak,” the order stated. Rejecting the State’s argument that the petitioner might abscond being an outsider, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Collins v. State of H.P. (2021) and the Delhi High Court judgment in Shokhista v. State (2005). Citing these, Justice Kainthla reiterated 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.”
He further emphasized that the apprehension of the accused influencing witnesses “can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to deny bail.” The High Court thus allowed the petition and ordered the release of Ugma Ram on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The bail conditions include regular attendance at trial hearings, non-intimidation of witnesses, surrender of passport, and disclosure of current address, mobile number, and social media details to the police and court. Justice Kainthla also clarified that any violation of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
Concluding the order, the Court underscored that denying bail merely on the ground of being a non-native would be contrary to law and fairness. The ruling reiterates that equality before law remains a cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no individual is discriminated against based on their residence or origin.
About the Author
