1 2026:HHC:26105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP(M) No. : 325 of 2026 Decided on : 02.07 .2026 Deepak Singh Verma …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by SI Surinder Kumar, Police Station Balh, District Mandi, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Rohit Rathour, Clerk-cum- Typist, from the office of Special Judge-II, Mandi, H.P., is present, alongwith the record. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26105 Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral) Applicant-Deepak Singh Verma, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case arising out of FIR No. 60 of 2024, dated 1st April, 2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. As per the applicant, he has no concern, whatsoever, with the crime in question. 4. In order to substantiate his plea, that he has falsely been implicated, it has been contented by the applicant that his father filed a Criminal Writ Petition, bearing No. 19 of 2024, before this Court, which was allowed, vide judgment, dated 17th December, 2024 and thereafter, investigation of FIR No. 106 of 2024, dated 10th June, under Sections 385 and 120B of the Indian Penal 3 2026:HHC:26105 Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station, Balh, was entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’). The CBI, thereafter, registered RC 092025S0003, dated 4th January, 2025, under Section 120B read with Section 385 IPC with Police Station ACB, CBI, Shimla. 5. Heavily relying upon the judgment of this Court, in CrWP No. 19 of 2024, it has been pleaded that the applicant has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as, according to him, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of such offence. 6. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the ingredients of Section 37 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act are existing in favour of the applicant. 7. The applicant has earlier tried his luck, by moving similar application, before this Court, by way of CrMP (M) No. 2457 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10th October, 2025. Thereafter, he has moved the bail application before the Court of learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, however, his application has been dismissed vide order, dated 21st February, 2026. 4 2026:HHC:26105 8. According to the applicant, apart from the present case, another FIR No. 66 of 2022, dated 10th March, 2022, was registered against him, with Police Station Hamirpur, under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, in which, he has been convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Hamirpur and against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, he has filed an appeal, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2025, before this Court, which has been admitted for hearing and the sentence imposed upon him, has been suspended. 9. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 10. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 11. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that the applicant has been apprehended with huge quantity of heroin/chitta. 5 2026:HHC:26105 According to the police, heroin/chitta, weighing 287 grams, was found from the exclusive and conscious possession of the applicant. 12. In addition to this, it has also been pleaded that the applicant is habitual offender, as, he was apprehended, in the present case, when, he was on bail in case, arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2022, registered with Police Station, Hamirpur, under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 13. The prayer for bail has been opposed, on the basis of the FIR, registered in the present case, in which, it has been mentioned that on 31st March, 2024, ASI Dev Raj, Incharge, Police Post Rewalsar, District Mandi, had left the Police Post, alongwith other police officials, for patrolling duty, towards Sidhyani, in a private vehicle. At Sidhyani, a secret information was received, regarding the indulgence of the occupants of vehicle No. TO124HP866A (Alto Car), who were coming from Ambala Galu side towards Nerchowk. As per the information, they were having heroin/chitta in their possession and if the said vehicle is searched, then, large quantity of heroin/chitta could be recovered. 6 2026:HHC:26105 13.1. The said information, according to the IO, was found to be authentic and reliable, and, due to paucity of time, in case, efforts were made to get the search warrants, then, in that eventuality, there was the possibility of removing the contraband from there. As such, the provisions of Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act were complied with and the information was submitted to DySP (Headquarters), Mandi, through Constable Sunil Kumar. 13.2. Thereafter, picketing was done at Village Banon, near Baba Balak Nath Temple. Meanwhile, the IO noticed two pedestrians, coming from Kalkhar side, who were going towards Sidhwani. Both the said persons were apprised about the situation and were requested to be the independent witnesses, upon which, both of them had agreed to be the independent witnesses. On inquiry, one person disclosed his name as Girdhari Lal and the another, as Krishan Chand. Both were associated as independent witnesses and thereafter, they waited for the car, as per the secret information. 7 2026:HHC:26105 13.3. It is the further case of the police that at about 9.05 pm, a car, being driven by its driver, was found coming from Kalkhar side, upon which, the IO signalled to stop the said vehicle. The driver stopped the car on the left side of the road. On checking, the registration number of the vehicle was found to be TO124HP866A. Apart from the person on the wheel, two more persons were found sitting the vehicle; one was sitting on the front seat and the other was found sitting on the rear seat. 13.4. Thereafter, the IO, in the presence of the witnesses, apprised the occupants of the car, regarding the secret information and also about his intention to search the vehicle. The names and addresses of the occupants of the car were ascertained. The person on the wheel disclosed his name as Deepak Singh Verma (applicant), whereas, the another person sitting on the front seat, disclosed his name as Kartar Singh and the person sitting on the rear seat, disclosed his name as Anurag Sharma. 8 2026:HHC:26105 13.5. Subsequently, the car was searched at about 9.40 pm. When, the foot mat of the front seat was checked, then, under the foot mat, an olive green coloured kit bag was found, which, on opening, was found containing a transparent polythene pouch. When, the said polythene pouch was unzipped, then, white coloured granular substance was found, which, on checking, was found to be heroin. The occupants of the car also confirmed the said substance to be heroin. On weighment, the said heroin/chitta was found to be 287 grams. 13.6. Other codal formalities were complied with. Subsequently, the contraband was taken into possession and the accused persons were arrested. 13.7. In addition to this, the police, in the status report, has submitted that the contraband was, thereafter, sent to SFSL, Junga, from where, the positive report has been received. After the completion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet and in 9 2026:HHC:26105 the trial, out of 30 prosecution witnesses, 20 witnesses have already been examined. 14. The factual position, with regard to the registration of FIR No. 106 of 2024, under Sections 120 B and 385 IPC, with Police Station Balh, on the complaint, moved on 11th April, 2024, by the father of the applicant (petitioner in CrWP No. 19 of 2024), as well as, the transfer of the investigation of the said case, to CBI, has also not been disputed. 15. According to the police, there is nothing on the record, on the basis of which, at this stage, the findings, in favour of the applicant, to meet the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, could be recorded. 16. In addition to the status report, respondent No. 1-State has also filed reply to the bail application. Alongwith the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1- State, the copies of the statements, recorded before the learned trial Court, have also been annexed. 17. Respondent No. 2-CBI has filed its separate reply, disclosing therein, that CBI is investigating 10 2026:HHC:26105 RC0962025S0003, registered on 4th January, 2025, under Sections 120B read with Section 385 IPC, in compliance of order, dated 17th December, 2024, passed by this Court in CrWP No. 19 of 2024, titled as Gurdev Singh Verma versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 18. According to the CBI, so far as the present FIR No. 60, dated 1st April, 2024, is concerned, it is the case of the CBI that the same is not in the domain of the CBI. 19. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 20. The applicant, in the present case, has been arrested, under the provisions of NDPS Act. The legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted this statute to curb the menace of drug abuse with stringent punishment. Certain conditions are there in the NDPS Act in the shape of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which are, in addition to the conditions, as contained in Section 483 of the BNSS. Before releasing a person on bail, those conditions, as enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are to be fulfilled, if the accused has been arrested for the offence, involving commercial quantity of contraband. 11 2026:HHC:26105 21. The contraband involved, in the present case undoubtedly, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. Once, it has been held that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused (applicant) falls in the category of ‘commercial quantity’, as per the Notification issued by the Central Government, then, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable, in this case. 22. When, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable, in that eventuality, before releasing the applicant, on bail, it is incumbent upon this Court to give findings, with regard to fulfillment of twin conditions, as enumerated, under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. These conditions are (i) that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and (ii) that while on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 23. The provisions of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, have been discussed and explained by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in the year 2004, in cases, titled as Collector of Customs, New Delhi versus Ahmadalieva Nodira, reported in (2004) 3 12 2026:HHC:26105 Supreme Court Cases 549, and Narcotics Control Bureau versus Dilip Pralhad Namade, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 619. The relevant paras 9 to 11 of the judgment in Dilip Pralhad Namade’s case (supra), are reproduced, as under: “9. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors. (JT 1995(4) SC 253) clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two limitations are (1) an opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose the bail application and (2) satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far the present accused respondent is concerned, are (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to 13 2026:HHC:26105 commit any offence while on bail. This nature of embargo seems to have been envisaged keeping in view the deleterious nature of the offence, necessitates of public interest and the normal tendencies of the persons involved in such network to pursue their activities with greater vigour and make hay when, at large. In the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing bail. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. 11. A bare reading of the impugned judgment shows that the scope and ambit of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not kept in view by the High Court. Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get bail notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37.” 24. The term ‘reasonable’ has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case, titled as Union of India versus Shiv Shanker Kesari, reported in (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 798. The relevant paras 8 to 11 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “8. The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. “7. … In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 2258 states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of 14 2026:HHC:26105 the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child’s toy. (See: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another (1987) 4 SCC 497. and Gujarat Water Supplies and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. and another [(1989) 1 SCC 532]. 9. “9. ...It is often said that "an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word “reasonable” is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space". The author of Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) has quoted from Nice & Schreiber 123 F. 987, 988 to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says, ‘the expression “reasonable” is a relative term, and the facts of the particular controversy must be considered before the question as to what constitutes reasonable can be determined’. It is not meant to be expedient or convenient but certainly something more than that.” 10. The word “reasonable” signifies "in accordance with reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another v. Kamla Mills Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 315). 11. The Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider 15 2026:HHC:26105 the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.” 25. This view has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a latest decision, in case, titled as State of Kerala and others versus Rajesh and others, reported in (2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 122. The relevant paras 18 to 21 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under: 16 2026:HHC:26105 ‘24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine. 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 17 2026:HHC:26105 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. 21. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.” 18 2026:HHC:26105 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, Narcotics Control Bureau versus Kashif, reported in (2024) 11 Supreme Court Cases 372, has again reiterated the law, as enumerated by it, in Narcotics Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 39 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under: “8. There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act. Apart from the granting opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, the other two conditions i.e., (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are the cumulative and not alternative conditions. xxx xxx xxx 39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under: 19 2026:HHC:26105 (i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. (ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. (iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone. (v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. 20 2026:HHC:26105 (vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.” (self-emphasis supplied) 27. Being guided by the above decisions, this Court would now proceed further to ascertain the fact as to whether the findings, as mandated by Section 37 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, can be recorded in favour of the applicant. 28. As stated above, the applicant has contended that he has falsely been implicated, in the present case. According to the applicant, prior to his arrest, a call was made to his father, demanding bribe to set the applicant free. As such, his father has filed CrWP No. 19 of 2024 before this Court, alleging therein, that his son has falsely been implicated, by the police, in the present case. 29. The copy of the petition has been annexed with the bail application as Annexure P-3 and the copy of the judgment, passed by this Court, in the said petition, has been annexed as Annexure P-4. In the said petition, it has been pleaded by the father of the applicant that on 31st 21 2026:HHC:26105 March, 2024, at about 6.04 pm, he received a call on his mobile No. 98821 19287 from mobile No. 62303 94647 and the person, on the call, informed him that two occupants in the taxi of his son, have been apprehended by the police, as, they were having heroin/chitta in their possession. On hearing this, the father of the applicant requested the caller to let his son go, upon which, the person, who had called him, demanded one lakh from him. ₹ 30. Subsequently, at about 6.15 pm, father of the applicant received a whats app missed call from mobile No. 84939 57506, upon which, he immediately called back on the said number. The person, who attended the call, pressurized the father of the applicant to arrange the money. 31. In the said writ petition, the father of the applicant has sought the following substantive reliefs, amongst others: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing and setting aside the arrest of the son of petitioner namely Deepak made in connection with FIR No. 60 of 2024 dated 01-04-2024 registered at police station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. being grossly violative of right and liberty granted under Article 21 of Constitution of India as he has falsely been implicated in the said FIR. 22 2026:HHC:26105 b) Issue a writ or direction or order to CBI for investigating the matter in question and to ascertain the truth. c) Issue writ or direction or order if after inquiry false implication is proved, FIR be registered against the erring officials and son of petitioner Deepak may be compensated for the same. d) Issue writ, direction or order to S.P. Mandi to preserve the call details and tower location of the following numbers and present them before the Hon'ble Court when ordered for: 1. Deepak Singh Verma (93174-12754) 2. Anurag Sharma (86792-11951) 3. Kartar Singh (85804-09261) 4. Sagar Chand ASP Mandi (94183-20803) and (70185-19433) 5. Dev Raj, ASI PP Rewalsar (94180-02139) 6. HC Bhanu, Police Station Balh (98167- 13280) 7. Petitioner (98821-19287) 8. Two number i.e. 62303-94647 and 84939- 57506” 32. The said writ petition has been contested by the respondents-State, by filing reply. Thereafter, the said writ petition has been decided by this Court, vide judgment, dated 17th December, 2024. By virtue of judgment, dated 17th December, 2024, the investigation of the case FIR No. 106 of 2024, dated 10th June, 2024, registered under Sections 385, 120-B IPC, with Police Station Balh, was entrusted to CBI. 23 2026:HHC:26105 33. Filing of the writ petition and passing of the judgment, dated 17th December, 2024, has not been disputed by the respondents, in the present case. 34. While deciding the writ petition (CrWP No. 19 of 2024), the following findings have been recorded by a Division Bench of this Court, in paras 50 to 56 and 62 of the judgment: 50. In above backdrop, even the police prima facie has concluded that Raj Kumar and Deepak were present along with Deepak, Kartar and Anurag at Om Shanti Bhojnalaya during day time on 31.3.2024 and on the same day they had committed the offence of extortion by calling petitioner demanding money under the threat of implication of his son in case under NDPS Act. 51. The police have not explained as to how Raj Kumar and Deepak had been aware about the future involvement of son of petitioner in offence under NDPS Act. Admittedly the extortion calls to the petitioner from Raj Kumar and Deepak had preceded the alleged recovery of contraband from the car of son of petitioner. 52. One thing is evidently clear that police have shown reluctance in probing the allegations against the ASP. 53. It has been alleged by petitioner that he had seen ASP driving the car of his son immediately before the alleged apprehension of said car for commission of offence under NDPS Act. Even it is alleged that petitioner had seen ASP alighting from said car of son of petitioner. He has been identified to be the same person who is visible in video clips from 24 2026:HHC:26105 CCTV footage allegedly obtained by petitioner from Om Shanti Bhojnalaya, Kalkhar of dated 31.3.2024 opening the door of car of the son of petitioner and driving it towards Ner Chowk. 54. Police has admitted that the ASP was present on the spot of alleged recovery of contraband from the car of the son of petitioner immediately before the time of said recovery. It has also been admitted that ASP had interaction with petitioner. Noticeably, police have not categorically ruled out the allegation that petitioner had seen ASP driving the car of his son. It has also not been ruled out that ASP was also present outside Om Shanti Bhojnalaya during afternoon of 31.3.2024. What was sensed by us during the hearings of the petition that no effort whatsoever was being made to investigate the above noticed angle. Rather, it was pursuant to orders of this Court that the police belatedly are stated to have sent to SFSL the video clips for analysis and identity of ASP. 55. We are of the view that the reluctance shown by police to carry investigation to rule out all possible hypothesis more particularly the angle pointed out, rather alleged by petitioner is sufficient to infer absence of un biased investigations. The delay in lodging the FIR can also not be seen without suspicion. 56. It cannot be ignored that serious allegations with the backing of some kind of tangible material, as possible evidence, have been levelled against a senior police official of the district. xxx xxx xxx 62. We have already highlighted the strong evidence indicating gross portrayal of inadequacy by the state Police. The conduct displayed by the Police prima facie can also not be said to be un-biased. There are allegations against the senior police official. 25 2026:HHC:26105 Having held violation of fundamental right of the victim at the hands of state law enforcing agency and also to uphold right of discovery of truth, we find it to be a fit case to direct the Director General of Police Himachal Pradesh to transfer the investigation of case FIR No. 106/2024 dated 10.6.2024 registered under sections 385, 120-B IPC to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla, who is also directed to immediately register Crime report in the incident and to carry investigations thereafter to its logical end. The State Police through its DGP is further directed to provide all original records relating to matter in question to the CBI within three days.” 35. It has rightly been highlighted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that in view of the stand taken by the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, in CrWP No. 19 of 2024, wherein, on the basis of the statement of the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Sagar Chander, during the inquiry, conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, it has been admitted that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi, Sagar Chander, when, on his return from Kalkhar to Nerchowk, had noticed police personnel near Baba Balak Nath Temple, Banourn, upon which, he, alongwith his team, stopped there and inquired from IO/In charge Police Post Rewalsar. On his inquiry, he has been apprised by the 26 2026:HHC:26105 IO/In charge Police Post Rewalsar, about the prior information regarding the transportation of Chitta in the car and that the car was stopped for the purpose of checking. Thereafter, the Additional Superintendent of Police also noticed two persons in civil clothes, who were introduced to him, by the IO/In charge Police Post Rewalsar, as independent witnesses. The Additional Superintendent of Police allegedly talked to them and according to his statement, when, he was about to leave, then, the father of the applicant, alongwith one person, reached there in car from Nerchowk side. The father of the applicant, as per the stand taken by the police, in the said writ petition, inquired, as to why, the car has been stopped, which, he claimed to be his car and also apprised the police present there, that his son drives this car as taxi, upon which, IO also apprised the father of the applicant regarding the prior information. It would be apt to reproduce para 4 of the reply, filed in CrWP No. 19 of 2024, as under: “4. That as per the written statement of Addl. SP, Mandi Sh. Sagar Chander, recorded during enquiry conducted by replying respondent, on 31-03-2024 he went to TTPS Mandi and while 27 2026:HHC:26105 he was in the TTPS Mandi he received an input that illegal liquor was being smuggled from Punjab to District Mandi via Bhota-Kalkhar. He further stated that he was appointed as Police nodal officer for ensuing 18th Lok Shabha General election-2024 and on the input of illegal liquor being smuggled, he alongwith his team went to Balh/Kalkhar area. On his return from Kalkhar to Nerchowk, Addl. SP saw police personnel near Baba Balak Nath temple, Banoun. He alongwith his team stopped there and saw ASI/In-charge Police Post Rewalsar had stopped a car and was enquiring about something. The Addl. SP enquired about the matter and ASI/In-charge Police Post Rewalsar apprised him about prior information of chitta/heroin in the car and told that the car was stopped for the purpose of checking. The Additional SP also stated in his statement that there were two persons in civil clothes about who ASI/In-charge PP Rewalsar told to be independent witnesses and Additional SP also talked to them. When he was about to go, the petitioner with one person arrived there in a car from Nerchowk side. The petitioner enquired why the car had been stopped which he claimed to be his car and told that his son drives this car as taxi. The ASI told him about prior information of chitta/heroin in the car and so it has been stopped and search was to be conducted. The ASI also told the petitioner about the Addl. SP. The Additional SP in his statement has further stated that the petitioner emphatically asserted that Taru (accused Kartar Singh) sitting in the car is chitta supplier, the vehicle belongs to the petitioner, son of petitioner drives this vehicle as taxi and Taru has hired his son as taxi driver. As per statement of Additional SP, the petitioner said that his son was innocent and requested to extricate his son from the matter. The Addl. SP further stated in his statement that he had just arrived at the spot and was introduced to the petitioner by ASI. He intervened and asked the IO/ASI that if anything incriminating is found in the car, he must enquire into the claim of 28 2026:HHC:26105 petitioner that taxi of his son had been hired by Kartar Singh @ Taru. Then Addl. SP told the petitioner that search of the vehicle was due and even if anything illegal is recovered, the claim of his son being only a taxi driver would be fully considered by the IO and he would be released if found innocent. On this the petitioner asked for mobile number of the Addl. SP and he shared his mobile number with the petitioner. After this Addl. SP with his team left the spot towards Nerchowk. As per statements of Police and independent witnesses present at the spot of FIR No. 60/2024, after a while of the Additional SP left towards Nerchowk, the petitioner also left the spot towards Kalkhar side. As per statement of Police officials after that the search of the car of the accused was conducted by the IO/ASI in the presence of independent witnesses as per procedure and commercial quantity of 287 gram of chitta/heroin was recovered from the vehicle. FIR No. 60/2024 under section 21, 29 of NDPS case was registered all the three accused were arrested.” 36. As per the stand taken by the police, in the said case, the presence of Additional Superintendent of Police, on the spot, when the vehicle, allegedly mentioned in the secret information, was intercepted/stopped, by the police, has not been disputed. 37. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Sagar Chander, admittedly was superior officer to the IO. When, he had stopped at the spot and inquired about the presence of the police there, upon which, he has allegedly been apprised about the secret information, on the basis of 29 2026:HHC:26105 which, the police had intercepted the car, then, this material fact appears to have intentionally been concealed/withheld by the IO, while preparing the rukka, which, as per the documents, was prepared at about 11.55 pm. The rukka, although, consists of five pages, but, the material fact, with regard to the visit of Additional Superintendent of Police, on the spot, that too, in the presence of the father of the applicant, has intentionally been concealed, for the reasons best known to the IO. Non- mentioning of this material fact, at this stage, that too, for deciding the bail application, cannot be ignored by this Court. 38. It has also been argued by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, that the proceedings, which were initiated by the father of the applicant, i.e. CrWP No. 19 of 2024, have no bearing upon the merits of this case, as, in those proceedings, the Division Bench of this Court has only entrusted the investigation of the FIR, which has been registered on the complaint of the father of the applicant, to CBI, for investigation, as, father of the applicant was not 30 2026:HHC:26105 satisfied with the investigation, is concerned, FIR No. 106 of 2024 is offshoot to the present case, as, according to the stand taken by the applicant, even, in the bail application, his father, prior to his arrest, had received the alleged call, in which, the alleged demand of one lakh was made. ₹ 39. Moreover, while deciding the question of existence of twin conditions, in favour of the applicant, the admitted documents can be taken into consideration, as, in this case, it has not been disputed that the father of the applicant had filed CrWP No. 19 of 2024, in which, after giving the opportunity of being heard, to the State, including the Superintendent of Police, Mandi, the Division Bench of this Court has entrusted the investigation of the case FIR No. 106 of 2024, to CBI. 40. Admittedly, the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in CrWP No. 19 of 2024 have now attained finality, as, the same have not been challenged, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, those findings can be taken into consideration, while determining the existence of the twin conditions, in favour of the applicant, at this stage. 31 2026:HHC:26105 41. When, a specific stand has been taken by the applicant, with regard to his false implication, in the present case, then, all the relevant documents can be taken into consideration, for determining as to whether the conditions, as enumerated in Section 37 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, are existing in favour of the applicant or not. 42. As stated above, in para 4 of the reply, filed by the State, in CrWP No. 19 of 2024, the presence of Additional Superintendent of Police, Sagar Chander, at the crucial time, i.e. when the applicant was allegedly intercepted, alongwith the vehicle, has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the father of the applicant was very much present on the spot, who had raised question with regard to the interception of the vehicle, which is admittedly owned by him. 43. In this case, a futile attempt has also been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, when, he has argued that in this case, all the witnesses, which have been examined before the learned trial Court, have not only supported the case of the prosecution, but, have 32 2026:HHC:26105 also withstood the lengthy cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant. 44. No benefit can be derived by the learned Additional Advocate General, from this fact, as, at the time of deciding the question of bail, the evidence, so recorded before the learned trial Court cannot be taken into consideration, as, it is the prerogative of the learned trial Court to discuss the evidence, so recorded before it, at the time of conclusion of the trial, and the said prerogative of the learned trial Court cannot be snatched away, by this Court, while deciding the question of releasing the applicant on bail. 45. So far as the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General, with regard to the conviction of the applicant, in another case, and as also highlighted in the reply, is concerned, admittedly, the judgment of conviction has not attained finality, as, the appeal against the said judgment is still pending adjudication, before this Court. 46. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely said, at this stage, that there is sufficient material available on the record, for this Court to record its satisfaction that 33 2026:HHC:26105 there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that, he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail, Moreover, for the second condition, reasonable conditions can be imposed, upon the applicant. 47. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 48. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 60 of 2024, dated 1st April, 2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. on his furnishing bail bond, in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall 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) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the 34 2026:HHC:26105 investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court; and e) The applicant shall furnish an affidavit by tenth day of every month, before the learned trial Court, disclosing therein that he has not been named, as accused, in any other case, during that period. 49. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 50. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant. 51. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 35 2026:HHC:26105 52. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Shimla. The Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Kanda, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. 53. Record of the learned trial Court, as well as, of the police, handed over to the concerned officials. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 02, 2026 ( rajni ) RAJNI Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2026.07.02 17:42:09 +0530