IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1683 of 2025 Reserved on: 5.8.2025 Date of Decision: 12.8.2025. Muntjir Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 140 of 2025, dated 21.6.2025, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and no role was assigned to him in the initial complaint. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, and he has no criminal record. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 20.6.2025 when they received a secret information at about 6.10 PM that Munshi Ram, Geeta Ram, Narinder Kumar and Govind Ram were dealing in intoxicating capsules. They had gone to Uttarakhand/Uttar Pradesh to purchase the capsules. A huge quantity of capsules could be recovered from their search. The information was credible. It was reduced to writing and sent to the office of the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Paonta Sahib. The police associated Narinder Kumar and Ranjan. Two motorcycles bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 and HP 17G- 6252 came from Kulhal. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 sped towards Paonta, whereas the motorcycle 3 bearing registration No. HP-17G-6252 was stopped. The driver revealed his name as Narinder Kumar, and the pillion rider revealed his name as Govind Ram. The police searched the bag being carried by Narinder Kumar and found a polythene packet containing 2386 anti-spasmodic capsules and 596 tablets of Alprazolam. The total weight of the capsules was found to be 1.374 kgs, and the total weight of Alprazolam tablets was found to be 0.112 grams. The documents were demanded for possessing the capsules and the tablets, but no document was produced. The police seized the capsules and the tablets. Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 was detained by the police at the Police Station, Puruwala. Munshi Ram and Geeta Ram were riding the motorcycle. They revealed during the interrogation that they had purchased the capsules and the tablets for ₹16,000/-. Narinder Kumar made a disclosure statement under Section 23(a) of Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA) that he could point out the place where the capsules and tablets were purchased by him from Muntzir Ahmad (present petitioner). He led the police party to the place. He also identified the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner on 24.6.2025. The petitioner revealed during the interrogation that 4 he had purchased the capsules and the tablets from Bhura; however, the petitioner was unable to identify Bhura. The capsules and tablets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and as per the report of analysis, the capsules were samples of Tramadol and the tablets were samples of Alprazolam. The call detail record showed that the petitioner had talked to Munshi Ram eight times. The location of Munshi Ram and the petitioner was found to be at the same place on 20.6.2025 at 3.44 PM to 4.12 PM. The petitioner is a resident of a different State, and he would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co- accused. The statement made by the co-accused is not admissible in evidence. The call detail record is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The 5 petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found in touch with the co-accused Munshi Ram. Their call detail records show that they were present at the same place, which corroborates the statement of the co-accused. The co- accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the capsules, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, 6 the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .] 9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the 7 need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into 8 consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The status report shows that the petitioner was named by Narinder Kumar and Munshi Ram. It is undisputed that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. It was held in 9 Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to a police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused implicating the petitioner. 13. A similar situation arose before this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri. L.J. 4564, and it was held that a confession of the co-accused and the phone calls are not sufficient to deny bail to a person. 14. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1627 that where the police have no material except the call details record and the disclosure 10 statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. It was observed: - 16. In the facts of the instant case also the prosecution, for implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the confessional statement made by accused Dabe Ram and secondly the CDR details of calls exchanged between the petitioner and the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking into consideration the evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details involving the phone number of the petitioner and the mobile phone number of the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner and had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 17. Since, the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold prima facie case against the accused person(s), in Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for maintainability of his successive bail application as also for grant of bail in his favour. 18. Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. Further, on the basis of the aforesaid elucidation petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 15. A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023, Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023, decided 11 on 06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of 2023, decided on 15.05.2023. 16. It was submitted that the location of the petitioner and the co-accused Munshi Ram was found to be the same as per the call detail record. The mere fact that their location was found to be the same does not lead to an inference that the petitioner had sold the capsules and the tablets to Munshi Ram. Once the statements of the co-accused Narinder Kumar and Munshi Ram that the accused had sold the capsules and the tablets to them are taken out of consideration, there is nothing to infer that the same location was to sell/purchase the capsules and the tablets. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody because his location was found to be the same as that of Munshi Ram. 17. It was submitted that the accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the capsules and the rigours of Section 37 of ND&PS apply to the present case. This submission will not help the prosecution. It was for the State to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and if there is nothing to connect him with the commission of the 12 crime, he cannot be detained in custody because one of the co- accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the capsules. 18. Therefore, there is prima facie insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and the petitioner cannot be detained in custody. 19. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from 13 the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 20. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 21. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Central Model Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 22. The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 12th August 2025 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2025.08.12 13:45:37 +0530