IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.1067 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Roman Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 18.6.2026, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No.48/2026 dated 06.05.2026 under Sections 20 & 29 of ND & PS Act, at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P, respondent-State has placed on record the status report and HC Praveen Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 5.5.2026, police after having received secret information that some narcotic substance is being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No. 2 HP83A1181, which is coming from Barang Kalan Nadaun, Majheen Chawk, constituted raiding team and after associating independent witnesses intercepted aforesaid vehicle for checking, which at that time, was being driven by person namely Lovekesh. Allegedly, police recovered intermediate quantity of contraband i.e. 354 grams of charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR as detailed herein above, and arrested the above named Lovekesh. Since during interrogation, Lovekesh alleged that he had purchased contraband from person namely Shammi and thereafter, sold the same to present bail petitioner Roman Sharma and Arun Kumar, all the three persons named herein above, came to be implicated in the case at hand. All the accused are behind the bars. Since investigation qua the petitioner is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, he has approached this Court in the petitioner for grant of bail. 3. While fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to joining of investigation by the bail petitioner pursuant to order dated 18.6.2026, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states 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 3 not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner indulges in illegal trade of narcotics. He states that record of financial transaction shows that during the last one year, sum of Rs. 1,48,220/- has been exchanged inter-se petitioner and the person namely Lovekesh from whose conscious possession, contraband came to be recovered. He states that though rigours of Section 37 are not attracted in the case at hand, but this Court may not lose sight of the fact that bail petitioner has committed offence having adverse impact on the society and it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the car being driven by co-accused Lovekesh, who allegedly disclosed to the police that he after having purchased the contraband from the co-accused Shammi Kumar, further sold the same to present bail petitioner Roman Sharma and Arun. 5. Though accused allegedly disclosed to the police that he purchased the contraband for sum of Rs. 55,000/- from the co-accused 4 Shammi Kumar, but there is no specific statement with regard to amount he received from the present bail petitioner and Arun for his having sold the contraband to them. Petitioner herein has been named in the FIR on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Lovekesh, from whose conscious possession intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered. 6. 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. 7. 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 5 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.” 8. 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, 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 6 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. 9. 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 Additional 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. Rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. 10. 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. 11. 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 7 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. 12. 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, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 13. 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. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 18.6.2026, passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: 8 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his 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. 16. 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. 17. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. 18. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of 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 25, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge