IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 906 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.6.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Suresh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Suresh Singh, who is behind the bars for the last three months, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.44 of 2026, dated 2.3.2026, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Pursuant to order dated 21.5.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and SI Ramesh Chand has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 2.3.2026, police received secret information that person namely Lakshay Negi along with his friend Yash is transporting huge quantity of contraband in his car bearing registration No. CH-04C-7097 and accordingly, laid Naka near Shamshergarh Bridge. Police stopped the aforesaid car for checking and found that two persons were sitting in the car. After having noticed conduct of occupants of the car, police deemed it necessary to cause their search as well as of the vehicle and accordingly, after having associated independent witnesses, effected search of the afore persons as well as of the vehicle and allegedly recovered 1.258 kgs of charas below the driver seat. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband by the occupants of the car, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, as detailed herein above and arrested them and since then, they are behind bars. 4. During investigation, allegedly above named persons disclosed to the police that contraband recovered from their vehicle was supplied by person namely Suresh Singh i.e. present bail petitioner. In the afore background, petitioner herein also came to be named in the FIR and he was arrested and since 5.3.2026, he is behind bars. Since investigation in the 3 case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Janmajai Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated because nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. He submitted that petitioner has been named in the FIR merely on the basis of statement made by the co-accused Lakshay Negi and Yash, which is not admissible under law. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance upon Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, contended that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this court peruse the record, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused was actually supplied by the petitioner. To substantiate his aforesaid statement, he 4 made this court peruse record of CDRs and tower location, perusal whereof reveals that prior to recovery, co-accused Lakshay Negi and Yash were in constant touch with the petitioner, as such, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be rejected because in the event of grant of bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may indulge in these activities again. 7. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that contraband never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the present bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused Lakshay Negi and Yash, who are still behind bars. Petitioner herein came to be named in the FIR merely on the basis of disclosure statement given by afore co-accused. On the basis of CDR, Investigating Agency arrived at a conclusion that contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner was supplied by the petitioner. 8. Question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is “whether disclosure statement, if any, made by the co-accused could have been made ground by the investigating agency to arrest the petitioner or not.?” Otherwise also, by now it is well settled that statement made by co- accused is inadmissible in law. 5 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, has categorically held that disclosure statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under Section 67 of the Act. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “155.Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 156.The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us. 157.On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs (2011) 12 SCC 298 are correct in law. 158.We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 242 of 2022 (arising out of diary No. 22702 of 2020) decided on 10.1.2022, 6 again reiterated that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in this case upheld the order/judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka granting bail to the accused arrested by the petitioner NCB on the basis of confessional/ voluntary statement of the co- accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial. 11. Though it has been claimed that recovery was effected in the presence of the independent witnesses, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that contraband was not recovered from the person of the bail petitioner. No doubt, rigours of Section 37 of the Act, are attracted in the present case, but bare perusal of provisions contained under Section 37 of Act ibid, nowhere suggests that no bail can be granted in cases involving commercial quantity, rather in such cases, court after affording due opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor can proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of bail being granted, he will not indulge in such activities again. 7 12. Though in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any circumstance indicative of the fact that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, but having taken note of the fact that there is no case registered against the petitioner in the past, this Court has reason to presume and believe that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he would not indulge in these activities again. 13. Question, which needs determination in the case at hand is “whether the provisions of Section 37 of the Act can be construed to have same efficacy throughout the trial notwithstanding the period of custody of the accused, especially, when it is weighed against their fundamental right to have expeditious disposal of trial.” Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have categorically held that speedy trial is right guaranteed to the accused and violation thereof, if any, amounts to violation of the fundamental right, especially Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of 8 the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569). 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this court to judgment dated 29.3.2023 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1904 of 2023, Sunil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, submits that petition having been filed by bail petitioner deserves to be allowed on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that petitioner in the aforesaid case, was behind bars for more than 1½ years and trial was yet to be concluded and Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, proceeded to enlarge the petitioner in that case on bail. Learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to the judgments dated 4.3.2023 and 15.3.2023 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 62 and 570 of 2023, titled Puran Chand v. State of HP and Prem chand v. State of HP., to state that in similar facts and circumstances, coordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court enlarged the accused on bail on the ground of inordinate delay. Having perused aforesaid judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, 9 this Court finds that in both the cases, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the accused, but yet court having taken note of the fact that they were behind the bars for more than three years, proceeded to enlarge them on bail. 16. Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 10 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 20. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, 11 severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 21. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and 12 (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 23. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 24. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 25. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. June 18, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ), (manjit) Judge