1 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 915 of 2026 Reserved on : 1.7.2026 Decided on : 2.7.2026 Uploaded on: 2.7.2026 Nagesh ..Applicant Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.Gs. with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 19.6.2025, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 2 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the above noted case, and has no concern whatsoever with the offence, for which, he has been arrested by the Police. 3. According to the applicant, no recovery has been effected from him. It is further pleaded by him that except the present case, no other case has been registered against him. 4. According to the further case of the applicant, investigation of the present case is complete. 5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the learned Special Judge- Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 3.9.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has approached this Court by way of 3 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) Cr.MP(M) No. 2670 of 2025, which has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 25.11.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for the relief of bail on the ground of parity, as the co- accused Chhote Khan has been released on bail by this Court, on 23.3.2026, whereas, accused Harsh, Akshit Ranchal and Dushyant have been released on bail, on 19.7.2025, by the learned trial Court. 7. On the basis of above facts, the applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 8. When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 19.6.2025, HC Dinesh Singh No. 46, alongwith other police officials, was on patrolling duty and on duty to put picketing, as well as, to detect the crimes relating to excise and narcotics. The Police party left the Police Line, Nurpur at 2 a.m. Thereafter, they had 4 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) conducted patrolling in Jassur-Chhatroli-Nagabadi and when, they had put picketing and started checking the vehicles moving from Jassur to Pathankot, they noticed that two local persons were coming from Kandwal Barrier. On inquiry, they disclosed their names as Sucha Singh, S/o Chidu Ram, R/o Ward No. 2, Village and P.O.Kandwal, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. and Dilsher Singh, S/o Late Sh. Nasib Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Kandwal, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. 8.1 As per the stand of the Police, at about, 5:45 a.m., a grey coloured vehicle was noticed moving from Jassur to Pathankot side, which was signaled to stop by Constable Ashok Kumar No. 299. Consequently, the driver of the vehicle stopped the car. The registration number of the vehicle was found to be DL 10 CD 9222. Three persons were found sitting in the said vehicle. After disclosing his identity, HC Dinesh directed the driver to produce relevant documents, upon which, the driver became 5 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) perplexed and could not give satisfactory answer. His activities raised suspicion in the mind of HC Dinesh. As such, he called Sucha Singh and Dilsher Singh and associated them as independent witnesses. In the presence of these witnesses, all the occupants were directed to alighten down from the vehicle and their names and addresses were inquired. 8.2 On inquiry, the occupants of the car disclosed their names as (1)Harsh Dogra, S/o Naresh Dogra, (2)Akshit Ranchal, S/o Harish Ranchal and (3)Dushyant, S/o Ashwani Kumar. All the aforesaid persons could not give any satisfactory answers. The vehicle was searched. 8.3 On searching the vehicle, from the dashborad, a blue coloured polythene envelope was found and when the knot was untied, a black coloured ball shaped substance was found. On smelling the same and on the basis of experience, the said substance was found to be charas/cannabis, which, on weighment was found to be 538 grams. 6 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) The contraband was again put in the same manner, in which, it was found. The polythene envelope was taken into possession. The vehicle was also taken into possession. 8.4 Thereafter, the ruqua was prepared and submitted to the Police Station, Nurpur, where, FIR was registered. Further investigation was conducted. Thereafter, accused persons were arrested. They were produced before the Court of learned ACJM, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. on 21.6.2025. 8.5 During police remand, accused Harsh Dogra disclosed that he could identify the place, where, on 18.6.2025, he had received the consignment of Charas from applicant Nagesh. His statement under Section 23(2) BSA was recorded. 8.6 Thereafter, on 22.6.2025, he has identified the place near village Tosh. Accused Rohit Katoch having mobile number 82195-58793 has been found to have talked to applicant Nagesh on mobile phone number 95557-91748. Thereafter applicant Nagesh 7 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) was nabbed alongwith carry bag, which, on checking was found to be containing charas, which, on weighment was found to be 840 grams. Applicant Nagesh was arrested and produced before the Court and was remanded to Police custody upto 25.6.2025. 8.7 The contraband, so recovered, was sent to SFSL Junga. During investigation, applicant Nagesh disclosed that Chote Khan is resident of his village and they used to talk to each other on mobile phone No. 81124-54835 to mobile phone of accused Chote Khan bearing No. 95557-91748. According to him, Chote Khan used to direct applicant Nagesh to pick/drop the consignment from/at particular places. Thereafter, CDRs, CAFF and location of mobile phone, disclosed by applicant Nagesh were obtained. On the basis of abovesaid documents, it was found that mobile number 81124-54835 was issued in the name of Chote Khan and he also used mobile number 70540-15215. 8 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) 8.8 Accused Harshit, Akshit and Dushyant are stated to have been released on bail on 19.7.2025/21.7.2025. On 28.7.2025, Chote Khan was also arrested. 8.9 In this case, charge-sheet has been filed and the case is now stated to be listed for PWs on 24/25.7.2026. 8.10 On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 9. Involvement of the applicant, in the present case, as per the stand taken by the Police, was found on the basis of alleged disclosure/revelations made by accused-Harsh Dogra, when, he was in police custody. As such, the same cannot be used against applicant. Hence, on the basis of alleged revelation/disclosure by the accused, nothing can be attributed against the applicant. The applicant/accused when nabbed, was allegedly found in possession of 840 grams charas, which is admittedly non commercial quantity. 9 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) 10. As per the stand of the Police, applicant Nagesh has disclosed that Chote Khan is his co- villager and they used to talk to each other on phone. People residing in the villages are well-known to each other, and the mere fact that Chhote Khan and applicant Nagesh used to talk to each other, is too short to take away the presumption of innocence from him. As such, merely, on the basis of CDRs, Police is not able to connect applicant Nagesh with the crime in question, at this stage. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., reported in 2022 (2) SCALE 14 has held that evidentiary value of the CDRs is to be determined, during trial. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co- 10 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) accused 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 9 of 12 2022 Live Law (SC) 63 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF 2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NIB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” (self emphasis supplied) 12. The CDRs can only provide information like Caller ID duration and Cell Tower Details, however, they do not capture the substance of the conversation itself. These are the call record details, which are the metadata (data about data) about the call and the same is totally different from call recording, which offers direct evidence of the communication, including specific words spoken and context of the conversation, which can be crucial, for deciding the matter. 11 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) 13. Even otherwise, applicant Nagesh and accused Chhote Lal are from the same village and their conversation with each other seems to be natural, than raising suspicion about the same. As such, merely on the basis of call details, relief of bail, for which, the applicant is otherwise entitled to, cannot be declined. 14. In this case, it has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State that considering the wait of the contraband i.e. 840 grams + 538 grams, the same falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, the applicant is not entitled for the relief of bail, unless the conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(b)(ii) of NDPS Act, are fulfilled. 15. The said arguments are devoid of merit, as there are two different recoveries in the present case; one on 19.06.2025 at Kandwal barrier from the possession of accused Harsh Dogra, Akshit Ranchal and Dushant and second recovery was effected from 12 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) the applicant, on the alleged disclosure made by Harsh Dogra, qua the fact that on 18.06.2025, the consignment of charas was handed over to him by Nagesh (applicant). Thereafter, in village Tosh, District Kullu, on 22.06.2025, when the applicant was allegedly nabbed, on the identification of accused Harsh Dogra, from his possession 840 grams charas was recovered. To the considered opinion of this Court, these are two different recoveries and the same cannot be clubbed, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Nadeem Ahamed versus The State of West Bengal, reported in 2025 INSC 993. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment 6 to 9 and 22 to 25 are reproduced, as under:- 6. Two independent persons were requested to stand as panchas in the search. The purpose of detention was disclosed to the detenues. The detenues disclosed their identities as Amit Dutta @ Rakesh8 (the co-accused) and Nadeem Ahamed (the appellant herein). They were informed about their right of being searched in the presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The detenues exercised the option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer. 13 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) However, no such officer was immediately available in the vicinity. Therefore, the seizure officer (PW-2) informed his superior officers. 7. At about 21:30 hours, Inspector Ananda Swarup Nayak, Additional officer-in-charge, i.e., PW-49 came to the spot in uniform. He was introduced as a Gazetted officer to the detenues, and a re-confirmation was taken from both of them as to whether they desired to be searched at the spot in the presence of Gazetted officer (PW-4), to which they agreed. 8. After observation of necessary pre-search formalities, the search of the co-accused Amit Dutta was conducted and, from his possession, narcotic drug, suspected to be heroin, weighing about 130 gms., some cash, a ring and a key, being personal properties, were recovered. The accused-appellant was also searched and narcotic drug, suspected to be heroin, weighing 125 gms. was found stashed on his person, along with some cash, being his personal property. A small portion of the narcotic drug recovered from each of the detenues was tested by the drug testing kit, which gave a positive indication for the presence of heroin. 9. The gross weight of the narcotic substance recovered from both the detenues came to be about 255 gms. and thus, the seized contraband was treated to be of commercial quantity. The drug packets so recovered were seized, and sampling procedure was carried out. One sample each, weighing 10 gms., was collected from the individual packets recovered from the detenues. The drug packets were then packed, sealed and labelled as Mark A and Mark B. The samples collected from both the sealed packets were marked as S1 and S2. 22. Merely because the two accused, walking side- by-side, were apprehended simultaneously, and both were carrying narcotic drug concealed on their body, the said coincidental happening, by itself, would not give rise to an inference that either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being carried by the other. These facts may give rise to a suspicion, but suspicion, however, cannot take place of proof. 14 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) 23. If at all the prosecution intended to bring home the charge of conspiracy, and club the contraband recovered from both the accused persons together, then positive proof to support the charge of conspiracy had to be presented. Such proof could not be substituted with mere inferences or conjectures. Positive and tangible evidence was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possession. However, upon carefully analysing the evidence available on record, we find that, apart from the bald allegation that both the accused were seen walking together and were searched one after the other, not even a semblance of evidence was led by the prosecution, which can substantiate the charge of prior conspiracy between the two accused persons. 24. Rather, upon going through the judgment of the trial Court, we find that, without there being any such evidence, the trial Court simply raised a presumption as to the culpable mental state by proceeding on an assumption that both the accused were conscious and aware of the contents of the packets stashed on the other’s person. Such assumption is erroneous and absolutely unjustified on the face of the record for want of evidence to substantiate the same. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat11. The relevant observations from the aforesaid judgement are reproduced below:- “7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged only one contention in support of the present appeal. He contended that the High Court fell into an error in taking the total quantity of the offending substances recovered from the two accused jointly and holding that the said quantity was more than the commercial quantity, warranting punishment under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. He contended that as far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court erred by assuming that there was criminal conspiracy within the meaning 15 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and erroneously proceeded under the said section. The High Court fell into a further error of assuming that because Section 29 was applicable, the total quantity of opium recovered was 920 grams plus 4.250 kg. The counsel urged that because of this error the High Court took the wrong view that the total opium recovered was of “commercial quantity” and, therefore, attracted Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. 8. Although, at first blush, the argument of the learned counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant and Danabhai Virabhai Rabari were found together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High Court to take the view that Section 29 was attracted.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial Court committed a grave factual error in concluding that the contraband heroin recovered from two distinct individuals could be clubbed together, so as to be covered under the commercial quantity (above 250 gms.). 16. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in light of the above decision, 16 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) the contraband i.e. 840 grams charas, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 (b)(ii) of NDPS Act, are not applicable, in this case. 17. In this case, co-accused, Chhote Khan has been released on bail, on 23.3.2026, whereas, Harsh, Akshit and Dushyant were released on bail, on 19.7.2025. As such, on the ground of parity, applicant is entitled to the relief of bail. 18. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 19. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 19.6.2025 registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with two 17 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 20. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) 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) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) 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, and d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 21. 21. Any of the observations, made herein above, 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. 22. It is made clear that the respondent- State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, 18 ( 2026:HHC:26019 ) in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant. 23. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Sub- Jail, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 24. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra. The Superintendent of the Sub-Jail, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. 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. (Virender Singh) Judge 2.7.2026 Kalpana/Subhash PRADEEP Digitally signed by PRADEEP Date: 2026.07.02 16:51:47 +0530