Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3791 (HP)

Tej Pratap Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-10-17

Rakesh Kainthla

body2025
Judgment : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 28 of 2024, dated 21.02.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21,22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act) at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration no HR-12Y- 8814 being driven by Roshan Lal alias Vikky Don, and recovered 960 capsules bearing the mark Parivon Spas Plus containing Tramadol and one polythene containing 22.92 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and capsules and arrested Roshan Lal, who disclosed that he had purchased the heroin and the capsules from the petitioner. The police checked the bank account and found the transaction between Neetu Devi and the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 4,92,100/-. The police arrested the petitioner, who got recovered a vehicle bearing registration No.HR85F-0550. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ambala. He belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in society. He is the sole earner of the family, and his family is suffering from hardship in his absence. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 24.02.2024, and the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. F.I.R. No.297 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018, F.I.R. No.271 of 2019, dated 13.09.2019, F.I.R. No. 276 of 2020 dated 27.05.2020, F.I.R. No. 25 of 2021 dated 31.01.2021, F.I.R. No.258 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021, F.I.R. No. 348 of 2021, F.I.R. No.174 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, F.I.R. No.182 of 2022 dated 15.04.2022, F.I.R. No.298 of 2023 dated 27.12.2023 and F.I.R. No.397 of 2022 dated 15.10.2022 are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 20.02.2024. They received secret information at about 6:20 p.m. that Roshan Lal alias Vicky Don was transporting the intoxicating drugs in his vehicle bearing registration No.HR12Y- 8814, and a huge quantity of capsules could be recovered by its search. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the resident of Additional Superintendent of Police, Nahan. They received secret information at about 6:20 p.m. that Roshan Lal alias Vicky Don was transporting the intoxicating drugs in his vehicle bearing registration No.HR12Y- 8814, and a huge quantity of capsules could be recovered by its search. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the resident of Additional Superintendent of Police, Nahan. The police associated Harish Chadner and Harinder and set up a Nakka. A vehicle bearing registration No. HR12Y-8814 reached the spot. The police stopped the vehicle. The petitioner was driving it. The police recovered 960 capsules of Parivon Spas Plus containing Tramadol and a polythene containing 22.92 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and capsules and arrested the driver, Roshan Lal, who revealed that he had purchased the heroin and capsules from the petitioner. The police checked the mobile phone of Roshan Lal and found the financial transaction with 15-20 persons through Google Pay. Roshan Lal had paid Rs. 60,000/-in cash and the other amount by Google Pay to the petitioner. The police found the transaction of Rs. 6,05,000/- between the mobile number used by Roshan Lal and the petitioner. The police obtained the call detail record and the customer application form. The mobile number xxxx xx7649 was found registered in the name of Neetu Devi, and the mobile number xxxx xx5555 was found registered in the name of Tej Partap (present petitioner). The location of these mobile numbers was found to be at Ambala on 15.02.2024. The police arrested the petitioner. He produced his vehicle bearing registration No. HR85F-0550. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner revealed during interrogation that he had purchased the heroin from some Foreign Nationals. The petitioner disclosed the place from where he had purchased the heroin. The police arrested Uchechukwau Emmanual with a carry bag containing 32.45 grams of heroin. The police also arrested Rajwinder Kaur and Nitu Devi, the owners of the accounts, which were used for the transfer of money. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 44 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution. The matter is now listed on 04.11.2025 for recording the statements of witnesses at Sl. No. 37,38, and 39. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 44 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution. The matter is now listed on 04.11.2025 for recording the statements of witnesses at Sl. No. 37,38, and 39. F.I.R. No.297 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018, F.I.R. No.271 of 2019, dated 13.09.2019, F.I.R. No. 276 of 2020 dated 27.05.2020, F.I.R. No. 25 of 2021 dated 31.01.2021, F.I.R. No.258 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021, F.I.R. No. 348 of 2021, F.I.R. No.174 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, F.I.R. No.182 of 2022 dated 15.04.2022, F.I.R. No.397 of 2022 dated 15.10.2022 and F.I.R. No.298 of 2023 dated 27.12.2023 were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar crime if he is released on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr N.S. Chandel learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime except the statement made by the co- accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. The financial transactions are also not sufficient to connect him to the commission of crime. The petitioner would abide by all 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 Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier. He would indulge in the commission of a similar crime if he is released on bail. Hence, 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 Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] ‘9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Perusal of the status report shows that the petitioner was arrested on the disclosure statement made by Roshan Lal, a call detail record showing the conversation between Neetu Devi and him and the transfer of the money from the account of Neetu Devi. 11. Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), corresponding to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, provides that no confession made to a police official shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence; therefore, the confessional statement made by the accused to connect him with the commission of crime is inadmissible. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 181 of BNSS) and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 23 of BSA) and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was observed at page 568: - “44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eyes of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1: (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47 and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1: (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47 and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 12. Similarly, it was held in 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. Therefore, the statements made by the accused and the co-accused Kamaljeet cannot be relied upon to implicate 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 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. 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 the 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 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. The police have also relied upon the financial transaction, but these are insufficient. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Amal E vs State of Kerala 2023:KER:39393 that financial transactions are not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime. It was observed: “From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that, apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners. It was observed: “From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that, apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners. It is true that the documents indicate the monetary transactions between the petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the question that arises is whether the said transactions were in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish the same, apart from the confession statements of the accused, there is nothing. However, as it is an aspect to be established during the trial, I do not intend to enter into any finding at this stage, but the said aspect is sufficient to record the satisfaction of the conditions contemplated under section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the petitioner.” 17. Therefore, the material on record is not sufficient to connect the petitioner to the commission of crime and his further detention is not justified. 18. It was submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, and his arrest is illegal. Since the petitioner is getting bail on other grounds; therefore, it is not necessary to adjudicate this plea, especially when the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) 17132 of 2024; therefore, this question is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. 19. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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. (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 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 Superintendent Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 22. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.