1  2025:HHC:25446 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 1648 of 2025 and 1649 of 2025 Reserved on : 25.7.2025 Decided on : 31.7.2025 1. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1648 of 2025 Prakrit Sanan @ Preet …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent 2. Cr. M.P.(M) No.1649 of 2025 Manav Kesar ..Applicant Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ________________________________________________ For the Applicants : Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Varun Chandel, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates Geneal and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G. 2  2025:HHC:25446 Virender Singh, Judge The present bail applications are being disposed of by a common order, being arisen out of same FIR. 2. Applicants have filed the present applications, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing them, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 81 of 2023, dated 6.8.2023, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in this case. 3. As per the applicants, they have been arrested, in this case, on the ground that one Samrit Dhiman was apprehended with 1.495 kg charas while travelling in a Volvo bus, whereas, according to 3  2025:HHC:25446 them, no contraband, whatsoever, has been recovered from their conscious possession and they have been arrested on 15.5.2025 after inordinate delay of 1 year and 8 months. 4. The ground, upon which, the applicants have been arrested, is stated to be alleged confessional statement of co-accused Samrit Dhiman, which, according to them, is inadmissible in evidence, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. In this case, the applicants have relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. 6. As per the further stand of the applicants, there is no evidence with the prosecution, connecting them with the crime in question. 7. Bail application of co-accused Samrit Dhiman is stated to have been dismissed by this Court on 24.6.2025. 8. According to the applicants, Manav Kesar is aged about 28 years, whereas, Prakrit Sanan is aged 4  2025:HHC:25446 about 20 years, as such, a prayer has been made that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants, in judicial custody, that too for indefinite period. 9. According to the applicants, investigation is completed and chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicants, in near future, are not so bright. 10. The applicants, through their counsel, have undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case, they are ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 11. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail applications. 11.1. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 6.8.2023, HC Samad No. 8, I.O., ANTF, Kullu has submitted the ruqua to Police Station, Swarghat, for registration of the FIR, disclosing therein, that on 6.8.2023, he alongwith other police officials, was present at Kenchi Mod, at Swarghat to Kirtpur Sahib road, on picketing 5  2025:HHC:25446 duty and was checking the vehicles, as well as, the passengers, travelling therein. At about 1 a.m (midnight), he noticed a Volvo bus, being driven by its driver, coming from Swarghat side. With the help of torch, the bus was signalled to stop, upon which, the driver of the bus parked the bus, on the left side of the road. The registration number of the bus was found to be HR38AA-9099 (white colour) belonging to Malana Travels. The I.O. entered in the bus alongwith the police team for checking. Thereafter, the I.O. gave his identification to the bus conductor. The bus conductor has disclosed that there are 41 passengers, one bus driver, one bus conductor in the bus, and the bus was enroute from Manali/Raisan to Delhi. 11.2 The I.O., while checking the said bus, when reached at the last seat of the bus, then, he noticed a person sitting on seat No. 37(W). On seeing the Police, he tried to avoid eye contact. On inquiry, about his name and address, he got perplexed and 6  2025:HHC:25446 tried to conceal the bag, which he had kept besides his legs, underneath the seat. As such, a suspicion was developed in the mind of the I.O. that the said packet might be containing some illegal article. Consequently, he requested other passengers of the bus to be the independent witnesses, but, all of them put forward their helplessness to be so. As such, driver and conductor of the bus were associated in the investigation, as independent witnesses. 11.3 On inquiry, the driver of the bus disclosed his name as Roop Singh Thakur and Conductor disclosed his name as Anil Kumar. Thereafter, the person, sitting on seat No. 37(W) was inquired. On inquiry, he has disclosed his name as Samrit, S/o Manish Dhiman, R/o 623 Green Field Majitha Road, P.S. Amritsar. In the presence of the witnesses and the said Samrit, the bag, having three zips, was opened, and the same was found containing Grey coloured lower, one T-shirt and one plastic envelope, which was having knot over it. The knot of said 7  2025:HHC:25446 envelope was untied and the same was found containing 14 plastic transparent packets, having black coloured substance. Out of one packet, wrapper was removed and the pancake shaped substance was found in it, which, on smelling and on the basis of experience, was found to be charas. On weighment, total weight of contraband was found to be 1.495 kg. 11.4 Other codal formalities were completed on the spot and the FIR was registered. The I.O. prepared the spot map. 11.5 On inquiry, accused Samrit Dhiman has disclosed that he, alongwith two other persons, came to Kullu in Verna car, and those two persons made him to sit in the bus, alongwith the recovered substance, which was given to him and those two persons had moved towards Kirtpur Sahib, upon which, ASI Mansu Ram tried to search for the friends of the accused Samrit Dhiman, but, they were not 8  2025:HHC:25446 found. Thereafter, accused Samrit Dhiman was arrested at about 6:30 p.m. 11.6 The contraband was produced before the SHO and re-sealing process was done and the contraband was thereafter produced before the Court of learned CJM, Bilaspur, where, inventory proceedings were conducted. 11.7 On 9.8.2023, accused Samrit Dhiman, was taken to River Range Hotel, Bhuntar, in police custody. The Visitor register and CCTV footage of the Hotel were obtained and taken into possession. 11.8 The contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga on 8.8.2023, from where, positive report has been received. 11.9 On 21.9.2024, search was made for accused Prakrit and Manav Kesar (applicants), but they were not found, in their respective houses. 11.10 It is the further case of the Police that during investigation, it was found that accused Samrit Dhiman, applicants Manav Kesar and Prakrit Sanan 9  2025:HHC:25446 are friends. When, accused Samrit Dhiman came back from foreign country, then, all of them had made a plan to visit Manali. Consequently, they came to Kullu, in vehicle No. PB02EL-9148, allegedly owned by applicant Manav Kesar. Thereafter, they contributed the amount, and purchased 1.495 kg of charas. Thereafter, accused Samrit Dhiman had borarded the Volvo bus No. HR38A-9099 from Bhunter, alongwith charas, whereas applicants Prakrit and Manav Kesar came back to Amritsar, in their car. 11.11. On 15.5.2025, the Police team, under the leadership of ASI Pawan Kumar, had again visited Amritsar to search for applicants Prakrit Sanan and Manav Kesar. Applicants Manav Kesar and Prakrit Sanan were found in their respective houses. On inquiry, they had disclosed that they are friends and residing in Green Field Colony. Applicant Manav Kesar is stated to have Verna car, in which, they are stated to have gone to Manali on 4.8.2023. 10  2025:HHC:25446 Thereafter, they have stayed in River Range Hotel. When, they reached Bhuntar, they had purchased Charas and handed over the same to accused Samrit Dhiman and applicants proceeded towards Amritsar from Bhuntar in the aforesaid Verna car. Accused Samrit Dhiman was assured by the applicants to meet him at Kiratpur. After reaching Kiratpur, applicants waited for the bus, but, when, the same did not reach there, then, they called Samrit Dhiman, however, his phone was found switched off. Thereafter, both of them had gone to Amritsar. Consequently, both of them were arrested on 17.5.2025. 11.12. During investigation, applicants Manav Kesar and Prakrit Sanan made disclosure statements, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, on 19.5.2025, stating that in the Hotel, where, they had allegedly stayed, one Rahul had given 1.495 kg charas, for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- The amount was paid to said Rahul. According to them, they are 11  2025:HHC:25446 aware about the said place and they can get the same identified, upon which, Police recorded their confessional statements, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which were signed by the witnesses. 11.13 Thereafter, they had identified the place, i.e. room No. 101, in Hotel River Range, on the first floor, where, they had allegedly stayed on 5.8.2023. They have also got identified the place at a distance of 100 meters from Hotel River Range, where, one Rahul had met them and they had given a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- to him for the purchase of charas. The spot map was prepared. 11.14 It is the further case of the Police that Verna Car No. PB02EL-9148 is stated to have sold by applicant Manav Kesar, in the year 2023, in Car Bazar, Amritsar. 11.15 Lastly, it has been apprehended that the contraband, so recovered, in the present case, falls within the definition of commercial quantity, and the 12  2025:HHC:25446 applicants are residents of Punjab, and in case, they are ordered to be released on bail, they may coerce the witnesses and may not be available for trial. 11.16 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 12 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 prima-facie findings, regarding existence of the twin conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 13. 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 13  2025:HHC:25446 fact that accused is not guilty of such offence, and while on bail, he will not commit any offence. 14. Admittedly, in this case, involvement of the applicants, was found by the Police, on the basis of alleged revelations, made by accused Samrit Dhiman, prior to his arrest, however, after recovery of the alleged contraband, his disclosure statement has not been recorded, nor his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. 15. No financial transaction has been placed on record to show the involvement of the applicants, in the crime in question, alongwith accused Samrit Dhiman, nor CDRs have been produced. 16. Even from the Hotel, where, they allegedly had stayed, the Police could not collect any document to show that three persons, including both the applicants, had stayed. The Police had taken into possession the Visitor Register of the Hotel, as well as, CCTV footage. Had there been some entries with regard to stay of the applicants, in the Hotel, then, 14  2025:HHC:25446 certainly, the Police would have produced the same on the record. 17. The alleged stand of the Police that during investigation, it was found that accused Samrit Dhiman and applicants are friends, is too short to fall within the definition of ‘evidence’. 18. Similarly, there is no evidence collected by the Police about the story which has been mentioned in the status report about the fact that when accused Samrit Dhiman came back from foreign country, then, he and the applicants had planned to visit Manali and thereafter, all the three persons in vehicle of applicant Manav Kesar, came to Kullu and purchased charas, weighing 1.495 grams, after contributing money for sale proceeds. 19. So far as the alleged statement of applicants recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is concerned, nothing has been recovered in pursuance of the said statement, which was allegedly made by the applicants, on 19.5.2025. 15  2025:HHC:25446 20. When, in pursuance of alleged disclosure statement, no fact was discovered, then, same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Rahul, who had allegedly handed over the charas to the applicants, has yet not been nabbed by the Police, as such, alleged disclosure statement, made by the applicants, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, is non-consequential. Neither the police is able to trace said Rahul, nor his participation has been proved. 21. If the said statement, allegedly, made by accused is considered in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘State (NCT of Delhi versus Navjot Sandhu’, reported in (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 600, then, the said disclosure statement is too short to connect the applicants with the crime in question. Relevant paragraphs 129 to 132 are reproduced, as under: “129. There is almost a direct decision of this Court in which the connotation of the expression "fact" occurring 16  2025:HHC:25446 in Section 27 was explored and a view similar to Sukhan's case was taken on the supposition that the said view was approved by the Privy Council in Kotayya's case. That decision isHimachal Pradesh Administration vs. Om Prakash [(1972) 1 SCC 249]. In that case, on the basis of information furnished by the accused to the Police Officer that he had purchased the weapon from a witness (PW11) and that he would take the Police to him, the Police went to the Thari of PW11 where the accused pointed out PW11 to the Police. It was contended on behalf of the accused that the information that he purchased the dagger from PW11 followed by his leading the Police to the Thari and pointing him out was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This argument was accepted. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for the Court observed thus: "In our view there is force in this contention. A fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 must refer to a material fact to which the information directly relates. In order to render the information admissible the fact discovered must be relevant and must have been such that it constitutes the information through which the discovery was made. What is the fact discovered in this case?. Not the dagger but the dagger hid under the stone which is not known to the Police (see Pulukuri Kotayya and others v. King Emperor). But thereafter can it be said that the information furnished by the accused that he purchased the dagger from PW11 led to a fact discovered when the accused took the police to the Thari of PW11 and pointed him out" 17  2025:HHC:25446 130. The learned Judge then referred to the decision of Madras High Court in Emperor vs. Ramanuja Ayyangar [AIR 1935 Mad 528] which held that the information relating to the purchase from the pointed shop and its carriage by a witness pointed out was admissible. Reference was then made to the law laid down in Athappa Goundan's case [AIR 1937 Mad 618] and observed that "this view was overruled by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya's case" (supra). 131. The passage in Sukhan's case was then approvingly referred to and the law was enunciated as follows: "In the Full Bench Judgment of Seven Judges in Sukhan vs. the Crown, which was approved by the Privy Council in Pulkuri Kotayya's case, Shadi Lal, C.J., as he then was speaking for the majority pointed out that the expression 'fact' as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act includes not only the physical fact which can be perceived by the senses but also the psychological fact or mental condition of which any person is conscious and that it is in the former sense that the word used by the Legislature refers to a material and not to a mental fact. It is clear therefore that what should be discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the fact with each other as the 'cause and effect'. That information which does not distinctly connect with the fact discovered or that portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible under Section 27 and cannot be proved". (self emphasis supplied) 18  2025:HHC:25446 22. Interestingly, when accused Samrit Dhiman was inquired after recovery of the alleged contraband, he has not named the accused persons. He has simply stated that two other boys came to Kullu in Verna car and when, accused Samrit Dhiman has not named the applicants, as those two boys, then, for whom, the search was made by ASI Mansu Ram, on that day, when Samrit Dhiman was nabbed, is a question, which has no answer, in the status report. 23. The status report is also silent about the fact as to how the Police came to know about the names of the applicants, as it is the stand of the Police that during investigation, it was found that applicants Manav Kesar and Prakrit Sanan are the friends of accused Samrit Dhiman, whereas, accused Samrit Dhiman, has not named the applicants as those two other boys, who allegedly came to Kullu in Verna car, alongwith him. 19  2025:HHC:25446 24. Moreover, whatsoever has been deposed by the applicants in the inquiry, before their arrest, does not fall within the definition of ‘evidence’. Even otherwise, 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. 25. 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 at this stage that the applicants are not guilty of offence and keeping in view their young age, it can be said at this stage that in case, they are ordered to be released on bail, they may not commit any offence. 26. Even otherwise, for the second condition, as enumerated under the provisions of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act that the applicants will not commit any offence, while on bail, reasonable conditions, can be imposed upon them. Consequently, the twin conditions, are found to have been existing in favour of the applicants. 20  2025:HHC:25446 27. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail applications are liable to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. 28. Consequently, the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 81 of 2023 dated 6.8.2023, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P. on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, each, with two sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 29. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) Applicants 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) Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) Applicants 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) Applicants shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 21  2025:HHC:25446 f) The applicants shall furnish affidavits, in the first week of every month, before the learned trial Court, disclosing therein that they have not been named, as accused in any crime, during that period. 30. 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 applications. 31. 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. 32. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Open Air Jail,Bilaspur, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 33. In case, the applicants are not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Open Air Jail, Bilaspur, 22  2025:HHC:25446 is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Bilaspur. The Superintendent of the Open Air Jail, Bilaspur 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 31.7.2025 Kalpana Digitally signed by VIKRANT CHANDEL Date: 2025.07.31 18:01:24 IST