Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 25.3.2026 vs State Of H.P on 31 March, 2026
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2026:HHC:9414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 95 of 2026
Reserved on : 25.3.2026
Decided on : 31.3.2026
Suresh Chand
..Applicant
Versus
State of H.P.
..Respondent
_______________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl.
A.G., assisted by ASI Parmanand, Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2025, dated 2 2026:HHC:9414 18.11.2025, registered under Sections 20, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'ND & PS' Act), with Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
3. No recovery is stated to have been effected from the applicant.
4. As per the case of the applicant, his involvement is based upon the alleged revelations made by Ramesh Chand, who was arrested in the present case. He has termed the allegations levelled against him, as false and concocted one.
5. Investigation of the present case is stated to be complete. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the Police.
6. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the learned Special Judge-
3 2026:HHC:9414 1, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 15.12.2025.
7. On the basis of above facts, the applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail.
8. When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.11.2025, Constable HC Pramod No. 74 has submitted a ruqua to Police Station, Shillai, disclosing therein that on the aforesaid date, he alongwith, other police officials, was on patrolling duty, as well as, duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics. At about 2:05 a.m., one car was coming from Ronhat and moving towards Shillai. The I.O. signalled to stop the vehicle, upon which, the driver of the said car stopped the car on the wrong side of the road. Two persons were found sitting in the car. The registration of the car was found to be HP01N0502. The person, who was sitting by the side 4 2026:HHC:9414 of the driver, was having a carry bag in his lap. Both the persons got perplexed, upon which, the IO inquired from the person, sitting on the conductor side about the contents of the carry bag and also inquired from the driver as to why he has parked the car on the wrong side of the road. Both the persons could not give any satisfactory answer to the query put by the I.O., upon which, the I.O. developed a suspicion that the carry bag, held by person, sitting on the conductor seat, might be containing some objectionable item. As such, he has decided to search the car and the bag.
8.1 Since, it was odd hours of the night, as such, no person was found there, upon which, a police official, telephonically apprised the Up-Pradhan of Shiri Kiari and requested him to come present to the spot. At about 2:20 a.m., the Up-Pradhan, alongwith one another local person, namely Kali Ram came there. Both of them were associated in the investigation as independent witnesses. In the 5 2026:HHC:9414 presence of independent witnesses, names and addresses of the occupants of the car were inquired. On inquiry, one person has disclosed his name as Ram Chander, whereas, the other person has disclosed his name as Tula Ram. Thereafter, the carry bag was searched, which, on opening, was found containing a white coloured envelope, in which, stick shaped black coloured substance was found, which, on the basis of smell and experience was found to be charas. The identification memo was prepared and on weighing, the charas was found to be 1 kg 584 grams.
8.2 Other codal formalities were completed and vehicle was taken into possession. The ruqua was prepared, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. 8.3 Both the accused Tula Ram and Ram Chand were arrested at about 7:05 a.m. on 18.11.2025. Thereafter, both the accused were medico-legally examined at CHC Shillai. On 18.11.2025, accused persons were produced before the Court of learned 6 2026:HHC:9414 JMFC, Shillai, District Sirmour, HP and contraband was produced before the Court, where, inventory proceedings under Section 52(2) of the ND&PS Act were conducted. Thereafter, the contraband was grinded, which, on weighment was found to be 1 kg 506 grams. Two samples of 40-40 grams were separated. The samples were sent for chemical analysis to SFSL, Junga.
8.4 Thereafter, authorization was obtained from the SDPO office Paonta Sahib to search the houses of accused Ram Chander and Tula Ram, but nothing incriminating was found.
8.5 During investigation, accused Ram Chander has disclosed that he had discussed about the purchase of the charas from a person, who is resident of Kupvi and consulted with his cousin Tula Ram, who drives taxi in Shimla. Thereafter, both of them had gone to Kupvi in car No. HP-01N-0502. At about 6 p.m., they reached Kupvi, where they had purchased charas from Suresh Chand (applicant) for 7 2026:HHC:9414 a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. The amount of Rs. 45,000/- was paid to Suresh Chand, through G-Pay. Rest of the amount was agreed to be paid after selling the Charas. Similar version has been given by accused Tula Ram.
8.6 During police custody, accused Ram Chander has also disclosed that he has purchased charas from Suresh Chand (applicant) R/o Kupvi. Thereafter, bank record from UCO Bank, Branch Shillai was obtained. As per the bank document, on 17.11.2025, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was transferred twice in bank account No. 17280110015216. The said account was found to be in the name of Suresh Chand (applicant) As such, upon the involvement of the applicant, in the present case, Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added, in this case.
8.7 It is the further case of the Police that on 19.12.2025, the applicant was arrested and was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., 8 2026:HHC:9414 from where, he was remanded to police custody. During investigation, he has disclosed to the Police that he has prepared the charas weighing 1.584 kg, during the months of July, August and September and after selling the same, he wanted to earn the money. As such, he has negotiated with accused Ram Chander to sell the same for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. Consequently, he has sold the same, upon which, Ram Chander had transferred a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in two different accounts, through Google Pay, and rest of amount of Rs. 45,000/- was to be paid after selling the charas.
8.8 As per the further case of the Police, CDRs of mobile phone of accused Suresh Chand and Ram Chander were obtained and it was found that on 16/17.11.2025, they had talked to each other, on various occasions. Their tower location was also found to be at the same location. FSL report is stated to have been received.
9 2026:HHC:9414 8.9. Lastly, it has been pleaded that during financial investigation, no movable or immovable property, has been found to have been earned illegally.
8.10 On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.
9. Involvement of the applicant, in the present case, as per the stand taken by the Police, was found on the basis of alleged disclosure/revelations made by the co-accused, during investigation, as in the status report, it has been mentioned that accused Ram Chander has disclosed that he had purchased the charas, for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from Suresh Chand. On the basis of said revelation, the Police has proceeded further by obtaining bank record and according to the Police, it has been found that on 17.11.2025, at about 6:20 p.m., an amount of Rs. 45,000/- was transferred in the account of Suresh Chand.
10 2026:HHC:9414
10. Apart from this, bank transactions have also been relied upon as the evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question.
11. The third ground, upon which, the bail application has been opposed is that the tower location of the mobile phones of accused Ram Chander and Suresh Chand (applicant) was found under the same tower and both of them had talked to each other a number of times, on 16/17.11.2025.
11. Admittedly, the applicant has not been intercepted/nabbed at the spot, alongwith the contraband. On the spot, accused Tula Ram, who was on the wheel in car No. HP-01N-0502 alongwith accused Ram Chander, who was also travelling with him, was nabbed. Recovery was effected from the search of the car, driven by accused Tula Ram. During search of the vehicle, contraband, weighing 1.584 kg, was found.
12. As per the revelations, allegedly made by accused Ram Chander and Tula Ram, during 11 2026:HHC:9414 investigation, the said contraband was purchased from Suresh Chand, for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was paid.
13. Admittedly, police has not arrested the applicant under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. As such, the grounds upon which, the bail application has been opposed, is liable to be considered by this Court.
14. Whatever disclosed by the co-accused of applicant, was revealed by them, when, they were in police custody. As such, the same cannot be used against the applicant. Hence, on the basis of alleged revelation/disclosure by co-accused, nothing can be attributed against the applicant. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu', reported in (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, the said revelation/disclosure cannot be taken into account, in order to convict the accused, under the provisions 12 2026:HHC:9414 of NDPS Act. Relevant paragraph 158.1 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"158.1 That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act."
15. So far as the bank transactions are concerned, on the basis of alleged two transactions, which were allegedly made on 17.11.2025, no inference can be drawn, at this stage, that the charas was allegedly purchased by accused Ram Chander from the applicant for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.
16. In this case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the statement of the account of applicant Suresh Chand, demonstrating that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was credited in the account of the applicant, however, in the status report, filed on 25.3.2026, nothing has been mentioned in this regard.
13 2026:HHC:9414
17. At the cost of repetition, Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, has not been added, in the present case. As such, merely on account of the bank transactions, involvement of the applicant, at this stage, cannot be presumed to have been made.
18. So far as tower location and CDRs are concerned, in the absence of call recording, from the said fact, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the applicant, at this stage. Applicant is resident of Kupvi, District Shimla, whereas, Ram Chander and Tula Ram are resident of Bindala, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P., which are adjoining areas. As such, merely, on the basis of CDRs, Police is not able to connect applicant Chote Khan with the crime in question, at this stage.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., reported in 2022 (2) SCALE 14 has held that evidentiary value of the CDRs is to be determined, 14 2026:HHC:9414 during trial. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 9 of 12 2022 Live Law (SC) 63 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF 2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-
74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NIB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless."
(self emphasis supplied)
20. The CDRs can only provide information like Caller ID duration and Cell Tower Details, however, they do not capture the substance of the conversation itself. These are the call record details, which are the metadata (data about data) about the 15 2026:HHC:9414 call and the same is totally different from call recording, which offers direct evidence of the communication, including specific words spoken and context of the conversation, which can be crucial, for deciding the matter.
21. From the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that on the basis of stand, as taken by the Police, in this case, as discussed above, first condition of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, is in favour of the applicant, i.e. he is not guilty of such offence, whereas, it can also be held that while on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. Even for second condition, stringent conditions can be imposed.
22. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
23. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 66 of 2025, dated 18.11.2025, registered under Sections 20, 29-61-85 16 2026:HHC:9414 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
24. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
a) Applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and
d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
f) The applicant shall furnish affidavit, in the first week of every month, before the learned trial Court, disclosing therein that he has not been named, as accused, in any crime, during that period.
25. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application.
17 2026:HHC:9414
26. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant.
27. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.
28. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Sirmour. The Superintendent of the Model Central Jail, Nahan is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.
18 2026:HHC:9414
29. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
31.3.2026
Kalpana
Digitally signed
by KALPANA
Date:
KALPANA 2026.03.31
14:33:01
+0000