Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14048 (HP)

LIYAKAT ALI v. STATE OF HP

CRMPM/911/2026 · 2026-07-03

Virender Singh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:26573 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP (M) No.   :    911 of 2026 Decided on       : 3rd July, 2026 Liyakat Ali …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      :  Mr. Vinod   Kumar   Soni,   Legal   Aid Counsel. For the respondent   : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant–Liyakat   Ali,   has   filed   the   present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha   Sanhita,   2023   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 32 of 2025, dated 28.2.2025,   registered   under   Sections   22   and   29   of   the Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic   Substances   Act 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26573 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act),  with Police Station, Majra, District Sirmour, 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. As   per   the   applicant,   investigation,   in   the present case, is complete and Charge­sheet has been filed in the learned trial Court. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that the trial   of   the   case   will   take   sufficient   long   time   for   its conclusion and his custody would be nothing, but, pre­trial punishment. 5. The relief of bail has also been sought on the ground   that   his   co­accused  Sajid   Ali,  has   already   been released on bail by this Court, while deciding Cr.MP(M) No. 1192 of 2025. It has also been impressed upon this Court that the role attributed to the applicant is similar to the role attributed to accused Sajid Ali. 3 2026:HHC:26573 6. The   applicant   has   tried   his   luck   by   moving similar   application,   before   the   learned   Special   Judge­II, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., however, the same has been dismissed, vide order dated 24.09.2025. 7. Apart from this, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 9. When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 27.2.2025, ASI Aashish Kumar, alongwith  other police officials, was on patrolling   duty   and   mining   checking,   within   the jurisdiction   of   Police   Station,   Majra. After   conducting patrolling,   when   ASI   Aashish   Kumar,   alongwith   other police officials, was on his way back to the Police Station, then, at about 8:00 p.m., they noticed a motorcycle coming from opposite direction near Pipliwala Jodo. On seeing the Police   vehicle,   the   motorcyclist   tried   to   move   towards jungle. His activities raised suspicion in the mind of the 4 2026:HHC:26573 I.O., as such, he directed the driver of their vehicle to stop. Thereafter, HC Kuldeep Kumar and HASI Rajinder Singh nabbed the motorcyclist. 9.1. On   inquiry,     the   motorcyclist   disclosed   his name as Liyakat Ali S/o Shibudeen, R/o Jagatpur, Tehsil Paonta   Sahib. On   seeing   the   police   party,   Liyakat   Ali (applicant)   seemed   to   be   perplexed. The   registration number of the motorcycle was found to be HP17E­0224. The   process   of   nabbing   and   checking   the   registration number of motorcycle was videographed by ASI Asheesh Kumar. 9.2. Since, the I.O. developed the suspicion that said Liyakat Ali (applicant) might be having some suspicious narcotic substance, as such, he requested to send someone from the Police Station, alongwith electronic weighing scale and chargeable printer. 9.3. Thereafter,   Sabar   Ali,   Pradhan   of   Gram Panchayat, Meliyo was telephonically requested to come to the spot at about 8:45 p.m. HASI Sunil Kumar, reached from   Police   Station,   Majra,   alongwith   the   articles,   so requisitioned. 5 2026:HHC:26573 9.4. After sometime, Pradhan Sabar Ali also reached there, who was apprised about the factual position. Since, it was forest area, and no  independent witnesses could be found, as such, Sabar Ali and HC Kuldeep Kumar were associated as independent witnesses. Thereafter, I.O., as well as, police officials had given their personal search, and nothing incriminating was found. 9.5. As   per   the   further   stand   of   the   Police, motorcycle   of   applicant   Liyakat   Ali   was   searched. On checking the motorcycle, underneath the petrol tank, when the tool kit was opened, the same was found containing two light white coloured polythene envelopes. 9.6. On   opening   the   same,   maroon   coloured capsules were found, upon which, words ‘Anti Spasmodic’, were written, which were found to be prohibited capsules. Applicant   Liyakat   Ali   could   not   produce   any   permit   or prescription slip, for carrying or possessing those capsules, nor he could give any satisfactory answer to the I.O. 9.7. On counting, these capsules were found to be 230 in number. In another envelope, 231 capsules were found. These capsules were taken into possession, along 6 2026:HHC:26573 with motorcycle. Other codal formalities were completed. Ruqua was sent for registration of the FIR, upon which, FIR   was   registered. Thereafter,   statements   of   witnesses, under Section 180 of BNSS were recorded. 9.8. Since, I.O. could not identify the substance, as such, applicant Liyakat Ali was bound down by serving notice under Section 35 (5) of BNSS, upon him. The case property was got re­sealed by producing the same, before the   SHO   of   the   Police   Station. Thereafter,   proceedings under   Section   52(A)   were   got   conducted   and   the   case property was sent to SFSL, Junga. 9.9. On 22.3.2025, result from the SFSL, Junga was received. The   operative   portion   of   the   SFSL   report,   as mentioned in the status report, is reproduced as under: Exhibit   No.   1:   Maroon   Coloured   Capsules   Description: Maroon   coloured   shell   of   capsules   (Anti   Spasmodic imprinted on capsule shells) containing white powder. Total Capsules = 230 Total weight of capsules = 130.640 g Total weight of powder  = 107.870 g The white coloured knotted poly bag marked as B was opened   and   transparent   interlock   poly   packet   found containing the following exhibit. Exhibit No. : MAROON COLORED CAPSULES Description: Maroon   coloured   shell   of   capsules   (ANTI   SPASMODIC imprinted on capsule shells) containing white powder. 7 2026:HHC:26573 Total Capsules = 231 Total weight of capsules= 131.208 g Total weight of powder= 108.339 g Laboratory Examination & Result The representative samples (12.0 g powder in A & 12.0 g powder in B) from the exhibits Maroon coloured Capsules (stated to be capsules of ANTI SPASMODIC) in poly   bags   marked   as   A   &   B   were   taken   ou   and homogenized. The homogeneous samples were analyzed using   physical,   chemical   chromatographic   (TLC),   and instrumentation (GC­MS) methods. The analysis revealed the presence of Tramadol in both the exhibits. The result thus   obtained   is   given   below. The   Exhibits   Maroon Colored   Capsules   (stated   to   be   capsules   fo   ANTI SPASMODIC)   in   poly   bags   marked   as   A   &   B   are samples of Tramadol capsules. 9.10. It is the further case of the Police that as per the report of the SFSL, Junga, recovered capsules were found   to   be   prohibited   substance   ‘Tramadol’,   as   such, accused Liyakat Ali was arrested. 9.11. According   to   the   further   stand   of   the   Police, applicant   Liyakat   Ali   has   got   identified   the   house   of accused Sajid Ali and disclosed that on 28.2.2025, accused Sajid Ali had called him to his house and handed over the capsules and motorcycle No. HP17E­0244 to him directing him to deliver the envelope containing capsules to a person at Surajpur. 8 2026:HHC:26573 9.12. Consequently, accused Sajid Ali was arrested, under Section 29 of the NDPS Act  and he was  medico legally   examined. Thereafter,   applicant   Liyakat   Ali   and accued   Sajid   Ali   were   produced   before   the   Judicial Magistrate   First   Class,   Nahan,   from   where,   they   were remanded to Police custody, till 25.3.2025. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody. 9.13. Lastly, it has been stated that total weight of contraband is 261.848 grams, which, as per the status report, falls within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. Charge sheet is stated to have been prepared, which has been submitted in the competent Court of law. 9.14. In the status report, it has been pleaded that on 27.2.2025, accused Sajid Ali, at about 5:15 p.m. from his mobile   phone   No.   70185­03574   called   his   co­accused Liyakat Ali (applicant) on his mobile Number 93170­81031 and called him to his house. Thereafter, accused Sajid Ali is   stated   to   have   handed   over   the   envelope   containing capsules and his motorcycle, alongwith its keys, with a request   to   deliver   the   said   envelope   to   one   Pahadi   at Surajpur. Thereafter, applicant Liyakat Ali is stated to have 9 2026:HHC:26573 concealed those envelopes in the tool kit. Thereafter, he was nabbed by the Police, alongwith the capsules. 9.15. In the status report, Police had taken the plea that   CDRs   and   Customer   Application   Forms   of   mobile phone   numbers   70185­03574   (mobile   phone   number   of accused   Sajid   Ali),   and   93170­81031   (mobile   phone number of applicant Liyakat Ali) were obtained from the Service Provider. As per the Customer Application Forms, mobile number  70185­03574 was found to be registered in the name of accused Sajid Ali, whereas, mobile number 93170­81031 was found to be registered in the name of Liyakat Ali (applicant). 9.16. As per the CDRs, on 27.2.2025, accused Sajid Ali and applicant Liyakat Ali, were found to have talked to each   other,   during   day   time,   as   well   as,   during   night hours. In this regard, page Nos. 97 and 116 of the CDRs have been relied upon by the Police. 9.17. The   Police   has   re­asserted   the   fact   that   on 22.03.2025,   applicant   Liyakat   Ali   has   got   identified   the place of accused Sajid Ali, in Jagatpur and disclosed that at   his   house,   accused   Sajid   Ali   has   handed   over   the 10 2026:HHC:26573 capsules,   which   were   recovered   by   the   Police. The   said house is found to be in the ownership of accused Sajid Ali. Motorcycle No HP 17E­0244 is also found to be registered in the name of accused Sajid Ali. 10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 11. Heard. 12. It has been argued by Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, learned Legal Aid Counsel, that the contraband allegedly recovered, in  the  present  case,  does  not  fall  within  the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. 13. To buttress his contentions, he has pointed out the contents of the status report, in which, report of SFSL, has been reproduced. As per the report of SFSL, Junga, from Exhibit No.1, total 230 capsules were found and total weight of the capsules was 130.640 grams, whereas, from other exhibit 231 capsules were found and the total weight of capsules was found 131.208.339 grams. 14. The said arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant do not hold water, as, in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh 11 2026:HHC:26573 versus Mehboob Khan, 2013 (3) Him.L.R. (FB) 1834), the entire contraband is to be considered, as ‘manufacturing drugs’. 15. Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   has   also argued that the applicant is also entitled to the relief on the ground of parity, as, co­accused of the applicant Sajid Ali, has already been released on bail by this Court while deciding Cr.MP(M) No. 1192 of 2025. 16. The   role   attributed   to   accused   Sajid   Ali   is altogether   different   from   that   of   the   applicant,   as, according to the stand taken by the Police, the role, which has been attributed to accused Sajid Ali, has been found on the basis of the alleged revelation/disclosure made by the   applicant,   during   police   custody,   whereas,   the applicant, as per the police case, was found carrying two polythene envelopes, in a motorcycle, bearing registration No.HP17E­0224,   being   driven   by   him   and   was   nabbed along with the contraband on the spot. As such, it cannot be held that the applicant is entitled to the relief on the ground of parity. 12 2026:HHC:26573 17. It is no longer res integra that before releasing a person,  involved in  the crime, it is obligatory  upon the Court to record the findings, which should be more than prima­facie  findings,   regarding   existence   of   the   twin conditions, as enumerated under Section  37(b)(ii)  of the NDPS   Act. In   other   words,   it   can   be   said   that   before releasing   the   person,   involved   in   the   crime   in   issue, findings have to be recorded by the Court, about the fact that accused is not guilty of such offence, and while on bail, he is not likely to commit such offence. 18. Considering all these facts, there is nothing on the record, on the basis of which, it can be said, at this stage, that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and while on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. As such, no case to pass any order in favour of the applicant, under   Section   483   BNSS,   is   made   out,   at   this   stage. Consequently,   the   bail   application   of   the   applicant   is dismissed. 19. Any   of   the   observations,   made   herein   above, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the 13 2026:HHC:26573 merits of the case,  as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 03, 2026(ps)