2026:HHC:22567 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 885 of 2026 Decided on: 17.6.2026 Geeta Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Sandeep Singh, No. 512, IO, PS Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:22567 the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 20.6.2025. HC Anil Tomar received secret information at 6.10 p.m. that Munshi Ram and the petitioner Geeta Ram were conducting a reconnaissance on the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947, whereas Narinder Kumar and Govind were bringing the consignment of a prohibited capsule on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 17G-6252. The police intercepted the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-6252, but the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 fled away from the spot. The driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-6252 revealed his name as Govind Ram, and the pillion rider identified himself as Narinder Kumar. The police searched the backpack being carried by Narinder Kumar and recovered 2386 anti- spasmodic capsules and 596 tablets of Alprazolam. The total weight of the capsules was found to be 1.374 kg, and the total weight of Alprazolam tablets was found to be 0.112 grams. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 was detained by the police of Police Station, Puruwala. Munshi Ram and 3 2026:HHC:22567 petitioner Geeta Ram were found riding it. The police arrested them. The allegations against the petitioner are false. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner was not present at the place of recovery of the capsules. There is no evidence that the petitioner had sold, purchased, or possessed the capsules. The police had wrongly arrested the petitioner. The police have completed the investigation, and a charge sheet has been filed before the Court on 16.12.2025. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 21.7.2026 and 22.7.2026. The prosecution has cited 31 witnesses, and the trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.6.2025. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. Hence, the petition was filed to seek the relief mentioned above. 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 secret information 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 4 2026:HHC:22567 could be recovered from their search. The information was credible. It was reduced into 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 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 kg, 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 documents were produced. The police seized the capsules and the tablets. Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 was detained by the police of 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 5 2026:HHC:22567 Kumar made a disclosure statement under Section 23(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) that he could point out the place where the capsules and tablets were purchased by him from Muntzir Ahmad. He led the police party to the place. He also identified Muntzir Ahmed, and the police arrested him. 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 accused were found in touch with each other. The petitioner and Govind had accompanied the co-accused for the purchase of the capsules. Petitioner and Munshi Ram were moving ahead of the motorcycle transporting the capsules when they sped away from the spot. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Special Judge, Nahan. The matter is listed for recording the statements of the witnesses on 21.7.2026 to 22.7.2026. No other FIR was registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 6 2026:HHC:22567 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was not found in possession of any capsule. He cannot be held liable merely because his motorcycle was moving ahead of a motorcycle carrying the contraband. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had accompanied the co-accused for purchasing the capsules. He was riding the motorcycle, which was going ahead of the motorcycle from which the recovery was effected. The commercial quantity of Tramadol has been recovered, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7 2026:HHC:22567 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 a 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 8 2026:HHC:22567 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. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, 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, 9 2026:HHC:22567 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. 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) 10 2026:HHC:22567 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 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. 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other 11 2026:HHC:22567 troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report mentions that the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 was not intercepted on the spot, but was intercepted by the police of Police Station, Puruwala. The police interrogated Narinder Kumar and Govind Ram, who disclosed that Munshi Ram and Geeta Ram had accompanied them to Uttar Pradesh for purchasing the capsules. This shows that the prosecution is relying upon a confession made by the co-accused. 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 12 2026:HHC:22567 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. 12. 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. 13. 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, 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. 13 2026:HHC:22567 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, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 14. 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. 15. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on the confession made by the co-accused and the call detail records. 16. It was submitted that the co-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 14 2026:HHC:22567 crime, he cannot be detained in custody because one of the co- accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the capsules. 17. 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. 18. 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 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. 15 2026:HHC:22567 19. 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. 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th June, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.06.17 14:41:10 +0530