IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No.2824 of 2025 in Cr. A. No.103 of 2021 Reserved on 02.01.2026 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 _________________________________________________ Tilak Raj @ Shammi ...Applicant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. J.S. Gulria, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge Present order shall dispose off an application filed by the applicant/appellant for the suspension of sentence, as passed by the learned Special Judge-I,Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra,H.P., 2. The applicant/appellant has approached this Court on account of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as passed by the learned Special Judge-I, Kangra 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2026:HHC:2502 ) at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP, whereby vide judgment dated 31.12.2020, the present applicant/appellant has been ordered to be sentenced to udergo simple imprisonment for 10 years under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act (here-in- after called as ‘ the NDPS Act’ for short) and in default of payment of fine, the convict has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 3. It has been averred in the application by the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is not involved in any manner in the case. It has been stated that applicant is in jail and he has already undergone the period of more than six years. It has been submitted that disposal of appeal shall take some time for its disposal, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal,his sentence may be suspended. 4. The State has filed the reply to the application and opposed the same. 5. It has been averred in the reply that the applicant/appellant was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 2.025 Kgs of charas and in such like 3( 2026:HHC:2502 ) offences, no leniency can be shown. It has further been stated in the reply that the learned Court below has rightly convicted the present applicant/appellant after appreciating the entire oral as well a documentary evidence placed on record. Further it has been stated that the offence committed by the applicant is serious and grave in nature, therefore, no relief can be granted to him. 6. We have heard Sh. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Sh. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the story as projected by the prosecution is false and highly improbable. He states that the present case as set-up is full of contradictions and inconsistencies and his client has got no link in any manner to the case as set-up by the prosecution. 8. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution has projected its case to be of chance recovery but the memo Ext.PW1/E (recovery memo) regarding the search of the officials, Ext.PW1/C (notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act) and the memo regarding 4( 2026:HHC:2502 ) the personal search of the accused, Ext.PW1/D which as per the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer, PW- 12 S.I. Naresh Kumar, were prepared before conducting the search of the bag, clearly contradict/demolish the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that as per these memos, which were prepared before conducting the search of the bag, on the top of these memos, Section 20 of the NDPS Act has been clearly written by the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that it is very surprising that when it is a chance recovery, then how the Investigating Officer came to know that they were going to recover charas. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-12, S.I. Naresh Kumar. PW-12 has stated in his statement that when the accused was questioned, he disclosed his name as Tilak Raj @ Shammi. He was given option to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but the accused gave in writing that he did not want to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, regarding which memo Ext.PW1/C, was prepared. The same was signed by the accused and Dev Raj (PW1). 5( 2026:HHC:2502 ) Thereafter, the accused was searched and in his right pocket of lower, one mobile was found, having mark of KED and having a Sim inside,regarding which memo Ext.PW1/D was prepared, which was signed by accused, Dev Raj (PW1), H.C. Ranjeet Singh and S.I. Manoj. 10. PW-12 has further stated that thereafter HHC Ravinder was sent to bring local witness and weighing scale. He returned after about 20 minutes alongwith weighing scale and thereafter, the carry bag of the accused was opened, which contained a polythene. On opening polythene, it contained substance in round and stick shape, which on the basis of experience was found to be charas. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the statement of PW-12 shatters the theory of chance recovery. He submits that by asking HHC Ravinder to bring the weighing scale after checking the bag casts a serious doubt regarding the story of the police and contradicts the version of chance recovery and makes the prosecution case doubtful. 12. The perusal of Ext.PW1/C,notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act and Ext.PW1/E(recovery memo) regarding 6( 2026:HHC:2502 ) the search of the officials reveals that on the top of these memos, Section 20 of the NDPS Act was written by the Investigating Officer. In Ext. PW1/C and Ext.PW1/D, the FIR number has been filled with red pen. However, in Ext. PW1/E in one flow with blue pen the FIR number and the provisions i.e under Section 20 of the NDPS Act have been incorporated. Thus, the applicant has been able to make out a prima-facie case for the suspension of sentence. 13. Keeping in view the perusal of the record and the material, as well as the admission made by the Investigating Officer, PW-12 S.I. Naresh Kumar, we are of the opinion that for the suspension of sentence, the applicant has made out a prima facie case. 14. At this stage, this Court is only dealing with the application for suspension of sentence and the merits of the entire case in depth and detail shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the main appeal. Therefore, faced with aforesaid situation, without commenting upon merits of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that for the determination of the present application, the applicant has 7( 2026:HHC:2502 ) made out case for suspension of substantive sentence imposed upon him and for his enlargement on bail. 15. In view of above, present application is allowed and the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant is suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below within a period of four weeks from today undertaking therein to appear before the Court as and when directed to do so and also to surrender before the Court in case of dismissal of his appeal. Bail bonds so furnished by the applicant/appellant shall be transmitted by the Court below to this Court for placing the same on record. 16. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here-in-above, which are only for the purpose of determination of the instant application. 17. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High 8( 2026:HHC:2502 ) Court of Himachal Pradesh before the Court below and the Court below shall not insist for production of a certified copy of order, rather, the Court below shall verify passing of this order from the web-page of the High Court. ( Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge January 08, 2026(veena) VEENA SHARMA Digitally signed by VEENA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 18:03:21 +0530 9( 2026:HHC:2502 )