1 2025:HHC:25594 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. :   1632 of 2025 Reserved on : 18 th   July, 2025 Decided on   :  31 st   July, 2025 Nanak Chand …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1   Yes. For the applicant      :  Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with   Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Rohit   Sharma,   Deputy   Advocate General,   assisted   by   HC   Rohit Sharma,   Police   Station   Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Nanak Chand, has filed the present application, under Section  483  of the  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:25594 in   a   case,   arising   out   of   FIR   No.112/2024,   dated 21.08.2024, registered with Police Station,  Sadar Shimla, District  Shimla, H.P., under  Sections 21  and 29 of the Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police. He is stated to be in custody from the date of his arrest. 3. The applicant has further pleaded that he has earlier moved similar application, before this Court, which, later on, was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Highlighting   the   fact   that   there   is   inordinate delay in the trial, as the charges have not yet been framed, the   applicant   has   pleaded   that   the   twin   conditions,   as enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, exist in his favour. 5. As per the case of the applicant, he has been named   as   accused,   in   this   case,   on   the   basis   of   the confessional   statement   made   by   co­accused   and   call 3 2025:HHC:25594 records. According   to   the   applicant,   nothing   has   been recovered from him or at his instance. 6. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 21.08.2024, HC Manoj Kumar   No.195,   I.O.   Special   Cell,   Shimla,   submitted   a rukka to Police Station Sadar Shimla, for registration of FIR,   mentioning   therein,   that   on   21.08.2024,   he,   along with other police official, was on patrolling duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics, towards Old Bus Stand, Chhota Shimla and Sanjauli side, in their private vehicle. 8.1. At   about   12.15   p.m.,   when,   the   police   party reached at Sanjauli Chowk, then, the I.O., received a secret information  that  on the road near Cancer Hospital IGMC one Indra Devi and one Aneesh are present and both of 4 2025:HHC:25594 them, in connivance with each other, have indulged in the business of selling/purchasing cannabis. 8.2. As per the information, the said lady Indra Devi is having a light yellow coloured carry bag, containing large quantity of Bhang/cannabis and both of them are there to sell the same. As per the information, in case of delay, the possibility of removal of the contraband is also there. 8.3. The information was found to be authentic and reliable, as such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same to his superior officer. 8.4. Thereafter,   the   I.O.   proceeded   towards   IGMC Hospital. He has informed the police of Police Post Lakkar Bazar,   to   send   one   Lady   Constable   towards   IGMC. Thereafter, Lady Constable Nisha No.403, reached at the spot. Two persons were found in taxi parking, who, on enquiry,   disclosed   their   names   as   Lalit   Kumar   son   of Shyam   Lal   and   Lalit   Kumar   son   of   Amar   Singh, respectively. They   were   apprised   about   the   secret information,   which   the   I.O.   had   received   and   were 5 2025:HHC:25594 requested to be the independent witnesses. Both of them had given their consent to be the independent witnesses. 8.5. Thereafter, the police party proceeded towards the Cancer Hospital. On the left side of the road, one lady and one man were found present. Lady was having the light yellow coloured carry bag in her hand. The I.O. has given his introduction, as well as, that of the police party and   also   apprised   them   about   the   secret   information, which the I.O. had received. 8.6. On   enquiry,   the   lady   disclosed   her   name   as Indra Devi and other person disclosed his name as Aneesh Malik. Thereafter, the carry bag, which the said lady was having,   was   searched   and   found   containing cannabis/Bhang, which, on weighment, was found to be 1.100 kgs. 8.7. After completing other codal formalities, the FIR in   question,   was   registered   and   the   contraband,   so recovered, was taken into possession. The accused were arrested. 8.8. Thereafter, the accused persons, as well as, the contraband   was   produced   before   the   SHO,   who   has 6 2025:HHC:25594 resealed   the   same   with   his   seal   having   impression   ‘T’. Thereafter, the case property was handed over to Malkhana Incharge. 8.9. On 22.08.2024, accused Indra Devi and Anish Malik were produced before Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, from where, they were directed to be produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Shimla. They were were remanded to the judicial custody for six days. 8.10. Thereafter, the inventory proceedings were to be conducted, under Section 52­A of the NDPS Act, however, due to the defect in the grinder machine, those proceedings could not be conducted. Those were conducted only on 2.8.2024. The   samples,   so   drawn   in   the   inventory proceedings, were sent to SFSL Junga and the remaining contraband was deposited in the Malakhana NDPS, Police Line Kaithu. 8.11. During investigation, accused Indra Devi, has disclosed that on 16.8.2024, when, Anish Malik had visited her house on Jachh, on the occasion of Rakhi festival, then accused   Anish   Malik,   disclosed   to   her   that   his   friend 7 2025:HHC:25594 Lucky, to whom, he had supplied the charas earlier on two occasions is demanding one kilogram charas and also told her that the said contraband is to be delivered to Lucky at Shimla. 8.12. Accused Indra Devi has further disclosed that thereafter, she had telephonically requested Nanak Chand (applicant), who is stated to be the son of her god­sister, to provide charas, upon which, Nanak Chand assured them that he will arrange the charas within 3­4 days. Applicant Nanak Chand oftenly requested them to find customer for him   for   selling   the   charas. Applicant   Nanak   Chand telephonically informed accused Indra on 20.08.2024, that he has arranged the charas and also apprised them that on 21.08.2024, they will proceed to Shimla, along with the Charas. 8.13. Accused Indra Devi and Anish Malik, have come to   Shimla   along   with   applicant   Nanak   Chand   and   one another person, in a vehicle. At about 9.30 p.m., when, they   reached   at   Dhalli,   applicant   Nanak   Chand   had handed   over   a   black   coloured   carry   bag,   containing Charas, to accused Indra Devi and requested her that now, 8 2025:HHC:25594 they are about to reach in City and checking could be done there and chances of search of a lady are less. As such, the carry bag containing charas was given to her. 8.14. Thereafter, at Sanjauli Bypass, accused Indra Devi   and   Anish   Malik   de­boarded   from   the   vehicle   and applicant Nanak Chand requested them to hand over the carry   bag   to   Lucky   after   receipt   of   Rs.1,00,000/­. Applicant   Nanak   Chand   also   apprised   them   about   the place where, he will meet them later and assured to give them the commission of Rs.10,000/­ each. 8.15. Thereafter,   accused   Indra   Devi   and   Anish Mallik had proceeded towards IGMC, on foot. Accused Anish called Lucky to IGMC and requested accused Indra Devi to proceed towards Cancer Hospital. After waiting for sometime, Lucky reached there. Accused Indra Devi, along with carry bag was moving ahead of them and she was followed by Lucky and Anish Malik. However, near Cancer Hospital, accused Indra Devi and Anish Malik were nabbed by the police, whereas, Lucky fled away from there. 8.16. During  investigation,  accused Indra  Devi and Anish Malik also disclosed that the cannabis was given to 9 2025:HHC:25594 them by applicant Nanak Chand and the vehicle, in which, they had come to Shimla, was also arranged by applicant Nanak Chand. However, they are not aware about the registration   number   and   owner   of   the   said   vehicle. Accused   Indra   Devi   has   also   disclosed   that   applicant Nanak Chand is son of her god­sister Banti Devi. Due to this fact, accused Indra Devi has not disclosed his name earlier and in order to mislead the police, she has named one Khem Singh, whereas, she does not know any person namely Khem Singh. 8.17. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   police   that   the Customer Application Form of mobile phone of applicant Nanak Chand bearing No.89888­06200 was obtained and photo affixed on the same was shown to both the accused i.e.   Indra   and   Anish,   upon   which,   both   of   them   had identified him as applicant Nanak Chand, as the person, who had handed over the Charas to them, which they had brought   to   Shimla   on   21.08.2024. They   have   also disclosed   that   applicant   Nanak   Chand   and   the   other person   came   in   the   said   vehicle   till   Sanjauli   Bypass. Thereafter, CDRs of mobile No.89888­06200 were obtained 10 2025:HHC:25594 from the service providers and as per the same, location of applicant   Nanak   Chand   was   found   at   Sanjauli,   Lakkar Bazar on 21.08.2024. 8.18. Thereafter,   location   of   the   said   phone   was ascertained and it was found that applicant Nanak Chand is   changing   his   location   from   one   place   to   another. Sometimes his location was found at Shimla Sunni, Baddi and Chandigarh. When, the Customer Application Form of Lucky, pertaining to mobile No.62309­20602, was obtained and the photograph affixed on the same was shown to the accused persons, they have disclosed that the said photo is not of Lucky and the said phone number was found to be registered in the name of Manoj Kumar, son of Shri Gopal Singh, resident of Narayandass Building, Gali No.14, Lower Bazar  Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 8.19. Thereafter, on inquiry, said Manoj has disclosed that he has purchased the said SIM in the year 2022. Thereafter, he had given the SIM to Dinesh Chauhan, his brother­in­law, who had gone to Punjab. Thereafter, he had shown the photograph of said Dinesh Chauhan to the accused   persons. They   had   identified   the   same   as 11 2025:HHC:25594 photograph   of   Lucky,   to   whom,   they   had   given   the cannabis about  two months ago and on 21.08.2024, they had planned to hand over the cannabis to Lucky at IGMC. 8.20. During   investigation,   Customer   Application Forum of mobile phone No.89888­06200, allegedly issued in the name of applicant Nanak Chand was obtained and his   identification   was   conducted   from   the   accused. Thereafter, mobile number of applicant Nanak Chand was put under surveillance and as per the same, his location was found to be Punjab, Haryana, Sunni and Karsog, but he could not be nabbed. 8.21. Thereafter, on 02.09.2024, as per the location of   mobile   phone   of   applicant   Nanak   Chand,   when,   the police   reached   at   Auckland,   near   new   OPD   Parking   of IGMC, Gate No.1, then they had noticed a person on the cart road coming from IGMC side, having carry bag in his right hand and as per the Customer Application Form of applicant Nanak Chand, his description tallied with the said   person. On   seeing   the   police   party,   he,   at   once, turned   back   and   tried   to   move   towards   IGMC. Consequently,   he   was   nabbed   and   from   his   possession 12 2025:HHC:25594 Charas, weighing 426 grams, was recovered. Consequently, FIR No.115 of 2024, dated 02.09.2024, under Section 20 of the   NDPS   Act   was   registered   against   him   with   Police Station Sadar Shimla. 8.22. Since applicant Nanak Chand was also wanted in the present case, as such, his production warrants were obtained and he was remanded to police custody for two days. 8.23. During investigation, he has disclosed that he used to prepare cannabis and used to sell the same to the consumers at the rate of Rs.70,000/­ ­ Rs.80,000/­ per kilogram. On   21.08.2024,   he   has   booked   an   Alto   Car bearing registration No.HP30­6315, owned by Prem Chand son of Bhima Ram, on rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/­ per day. Thereafter,   on   21.08.2024,   at   about   6.00   a.m., applicant Nanak Chand and accused Indra Devi and Anish Malik started from Choridhar to Shimla. After reaching near Dhalli, applicant Nanak Chand had handed over the black coloured carry bag, containing Charas to Indra, by apprising her that the chances of search of a female are less. At Sanjauli Bypass accused Indra and Anish Malik 13 2025:HHC:25594 deboarded the car and bag containing charas was directed to be given to Lucky, after receiving one lac rupees and also apprised them that he will pay their commission. On 21.08.2024, applicant Nanak Chand met Anish Malik, for the first time. 8.24. After completion of other codal formalities and after receipt of positive report from SFSL Junga, the police has filed the charge­sheet against the accused persons, including the applicant, in the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla, on 4.11.2024 and the case is now listed before the Court on 19th July, 2025, for evidence. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10. Admittedly, the contraband, allegedly recovered, in   this   case,   falls   within   the   definition   of   ‘commercial quantity. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Criminal  Appeal  No.5544  of 2024, titled as ‘Narcotics   Control   Bureau   versus   Kashif’,  Citation No.2024 INSC 1045, before releasing the person, involved in the crime, it is obligatory upon the Court to record the findings, which should be more than prima­facie findings, 14 2025:HHC:25594 regarding existence of the twin conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. In other words, it can be said that before releasing the person, involved in the crime in issue, findings have to be recorded by the Court, about the fact that accused is not guilty of such offence, and while on bail, he will not commit any offence. 11. Admittedly,   in   this   case,   involvement   of   the applicant, was  found by the Police, on the basis of alleged revelation, made by accused Indra Devi and Anish Malik. Meaning thereby, whatsoever disclosed by accused Indra Devi and Anish Malik, that has been disclosed by them, when they were in the custody of the police. The custody and arrest are two different terms. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikram Singh and ors versus State of Punjab; AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1007 titled as   have distinguish between the word ‘arrest’ and the word ‘custody’ as used in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Relevant   Paras­12   &   16   of   the   judgment,   are reproduced, as under:­ “12. Mr. Sharan has, however, referred us  to Section 46(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to   argue   that   till   the   appellants   had   been arrested   in   accordance   with   the   aforesaid 15 2025:HHC:25594 provision they could not be said to be in police custody. We   see   that   Section   46   deals   with 'Arrest how made'. We are of the opinion that word “arrest” used in Section 46 relates to a formal   arrest   whereas   Section   27   of   the Evidence Act talks about custody of a person accused of an offence. In the present case the appellants were undoubtedly put under formal, arrest on the 15th February 2005 whereas the recoveries had been made prior to that date but admittedly,   also,   they   were   in   police   custody and accused is an offence at the time of their apprehension   on   the   14th February   2005. Moreover,   in   the   light   of   the   judgment   in   the Constitution Bench and the observation that the words in Section 27 “accused of any offence” are   descriptive   of   a   person   making   the statement,   the   submission   that   this   Section would be operable only after formal arrest under Section 46(1) of the Code, cannot be accepted. This   argument   does   not   merit   any   further discussion. xxx xxx xxx 16. It is also significant that Jasvir Singh also disclosed that he had kept concealed the dead body in the fields of village Daulatpur and that it had been removed from Darshan Kaur's house in the Chevrolet car belonging to him and the three appellants had further revealed that the dead body had been disposed of in the fields of village   Daulatpur   and   the   dead   body   was recovered and taken into possession by Memo Ex.PGGG signed by Manohar Lal as also Sub­ Inspector   Jeevan   Kumar. We   are   unable   to accept  Mr. Sharan's  bare submission that  the evidence   of   Manohar   Lal   and   Sub­Inspector Jeevan Kumar should not be believed as they were interested in the successful outcome of the prosecution,   as   no   other   material   adverse circumstance has been brought to our notice.” 16 2025:HHC:25594 13. Full   Bench   of   Hon’ble   Lahore   High   Court   in Hakam Khuda Yar  versus  Emperor; AIR 1940 Lahore 129, have also defined the word ‘custody’ and held that the police custody does not necessarily means custody after formal   arrest. Relevant   portion   of   the   judgment,   is reproduced, as under:­ “......... As   regards   the   first   point,   the   term "custody" is not defined either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Evidence Act. There is, of course, no doubt that an accused person will be in the "custody" of the police after his arrest; but   the   question   is   whether   he   can   be considered to be in "custody" at any time earlier, when he has not been formally arrested, but is merely detained by the police for the purpose of the investigation. Section 27 is anomalous in so far as it applies only to information leading to a discovery   when   received   from   an   accused person in the custody of the police, but not if he is   not   in   the   custody   of   the   police. If   the information  is   relevant  when   it   comes   from   a person in the custody of the police, there seems no good reason why it should not be so when it comes from an accused person, who is not in the custody of the police and therefore not under the influence of the police. The real intention of the Section   very   probably   is   to   make   information from   an   accused   person   which   leads   to discovery relevant even when the person is in police custody. But the language of, the Section makes such information relevant only when it comes from an accused person in the custody of the police. The language used in the Section thus leads to the curious result probably never intended­­that when such information is given by an accused 17 2025:HHC:25594 person, who is not in the "custody" of the police it will not be covered by the Section. However, apart from the above anomaly, the intention of the Section seems, I think, clear enough and that is to make information leading to a discovery relevant, even when it comes from an accused person who is in the custody of the police and thus   subject   to   police   influence. Ordinarily information   coming   from   an   accused   person, who is liable to be influenced by the police will be open to suspicion. But if the information leads to the discovery of a relevant fact, that discovery is considered to be a guarantee of the truth of the information as has been pointed out already and hence such information is made relevant by Section 27. Now there can be little doubt, that even   before   his   formal   arrest,   an   accused person, who is detained by the police owing to suspicion against him, is liable to be influenced by the   police. This  Court  has  therefore  put   a wide   interpretation   on   the   word   "custody"   as used in Section 27. In AIR 1933 Lah 609, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sir Shadi Lal and Coldstream J. that 'police custody'   does   not   necessarily   mean   custody after   formal   arrest   and   that   it   also   includes 'some form of police surveillance and restriction on the movements of the person concerned by the police. 14. In view of the above, whatsoever disclosed by accused Indra Devi, was disclosed by her, when, she was in police custody. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu’, (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, the said statement cannot be taken into account, in order to convict 18 2025:HHC:25594 the accused, under the provisions 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. As   such,   the   objections   of   the   learned Additional Advocate General, qua the fact that Indra Devi had disclosed about applicant Nanak Chand, prior to his arrest is liable to be rejected. 16. Moreover, whatsoever has been disclosed by the accused during the investigation, is also not liable to be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that no one can be compelled to be the witness against himself, as the same   is   violative   of   Article   20(3)   of   the   Constitution   of India. 17. No   financial   transaction   has   been   placed   on record to show the involvement of the applicant, in the crime   in   question,   along   with   accused   Indra   Devi   and Anish Malik, nor CDRs have been produced. 19 2025:HHC:25594 18. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that on the basis of the stand, so taken by the Police, in this case, it can be said that the applicant is guilty of such offence and keeping in view his age, it can be said, at this stage, that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not commit any offence. 19. Even   otherwise,   for   the   second   condition,   as enumerated under the provisions of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act that the applicant will not commit any offence, while on bail, reasonable conditions, can be imposed upon him. Consequently, the twin conditions, are found to be existing in favour of the applicant. 20. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 21. Consequently,   the   applicant   is   ordered   to   be released   on   bail   in   case   FIR   No.   112   of   2024     dated 21.08.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29   of the NDPS   Act,     with   Police   Station,   Sadar   Shimla,   District Shimla, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 20 2025:HHC:25594 Rs.1,00,000/­, with two sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 22. 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. 23. 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 application. 24. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant. 21 2025:HHC:25594 25. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the   bail   order   to   the   Superintendent   Jail,   District   Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, through e­mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­prison software. 26. In   case,   the   applicant   is   not   released   within   a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, is   directed   to   inform   this   fact   to   the   Secretary,   DLSA, Shimla. The   Superintendent   Jail,   District   Jail,   Kaithu, District Shimla, is further directed that if the applicants fail 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. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 31, 2025 ( ps ) Digitally signed by VIKRANT CHANDEL Date: 2025.07.31 18:42:12 IST