2026:HHC:27516 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1071 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026. Rahul Verma …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with M/s Varun Chauan and Swati Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 107 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 29 and 27A of the Narcotic 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:27516 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahnita (BNS) 2023. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had arrested Suraj and Rohit, who were found in possession of the heroin weighing 6.380 grams and a weighing machine on 14.08.2024. The police found during the investigation that the arrested persons were working for one Sandeep Shah. The police arrayed 67 persons as accused based on the call records and the bank statements. The police found some financial transactions in the bank account of the petitioner's father, and the police arrayed the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner surrendered before the police on 27.11.2025, after his pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner is lodged in judicial custody at District Jail, Kaithu. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner's custody is not required for the investigation. The petitioner was posted in the Special Investigation Unit, and he used to collect information from various sources regarding the transportation of the contraband. The petitioner never had any conversation or business transaction with Sandeep Shah. The Mobile No. xxx083 stated to 3 2026:HHC:27516 be used by the petitioner was never recovered, and there is no material to connect the petitioner to the mobile number. A second-hand mobile phone was purchased by the petitioner's father-in-law, which is being wrongfully attributed to the petitioner. There is no material to show that Sandeep Shah had deposited the money in the petitioner's account. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and his family is undergoing hardship due to his detention. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 13.8.2024. Secret information was received on 14th August 2024 at about 12:05 am that two persons, staying in Room No. 101 of the hotel Himachal, had a huge quantity of narcotics. The Police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the supervisory officer. The Police went to room number 101 with independent witnesses. Suraj and Rohit Pandey were found in the room. The police searched the room and recovered one polythene packet containing 6.380 grams of heroin and a digital weighing machine. The Police seized the heroin and the digital weighing machine. The police arrested the occupants of the 4 2026:HHC:27516 room. Suraj and Rohit Pandey disclosed during the investigation that Sandeep Shah had supplied the heroin to them. Sandeep Shah used to send the location and direct them to keep the heroin in those locations. They would drop the heroin and send the location to Sandeep Shah via WhatsApp. The police checked the call detail records and the bank account statements. The police found that Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore and Aastik Chauhan were in contact with Rohit Pandey and Suraj. They had transferred a huge amount to Sandeep Shah’s bank account. Police arrested Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore, Aastik Chauhan, Sandeep Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. The police found during the investigation that Sandeep Shah was dealing in narcotics. FIR number 108/2022 and FIR number 190/21 were registered against him. The main accused, Sandeep Shah, disclosed during the interrogation that the police officials were also involved in the commission of the offence. He named Jugal Kishore, Sandy, Rajat and Rohit. The police arrested Jugal Kishore and Rajat Chandel. Rajat Chandel disclosed during interrogation that Honey Verma, Advocate, the cousin of Rahul Verma (bail petitioner), had transferred money by saying that it was a fee for the clients. The bail petitioner used to inquire from Rajat Chandel about the transfer of the money. Rajat Chandel had transferred ₹1.5 lacs to the petitioner. 5 2026:HHC:27516 The police checked four mobile phones of Sandeep Shah and found that Mobile No xxx820 was saved in the mobile phone of Sandeep Shah as Bhai Original and Rahul Bhai (Bhai Original). This number was found to be in touch with the virtual mobile No.xxx260 on 5.8.2024 and xxx545 between 12.9.2024 and 16.9.2024. One mobile number, xxx083, was found to be in touch with the mobile number xxx990 of Sandeep Shah. The chat was found in the mobile related to the partnership in narcotics, getting the heroin on the location, taking it in packets, depositing the money, change of name, saving the number with deep glasses, tracking by the police, inability to help Sandeep Shah due to transfer, passing the information of Police naka and sending heroin by courier. Mobile No.xxx083 was found to be operating in Calcutta city till 12.4.2024. Tapushi Shah, mother of Sandeep Shah, was called by this number. This number was operated at Shimla between 15.4.2024 and 20.8.2024. The IMEI No. 1671 was found to be connected to the mobile No. xxx083. It was found that the mobile No. xxx083 was used on this IMEI No. till 19.10.2024. Thereafter, mobile No.xxx316 was used on this IMEI number. One number was found to be issued to the petitioner’s wife. The police seized the mobile set with this IMEI number and sent it to FSL. This mobile set was used by the petitioner’s parents-in-law. Dila Ram, 6 2026:HHC:27516 father-in-law of the petitioner, died in June 2025, and the mother- in-law used the mobile set after 28.8.2025. SBI Account No. xxx377, belonging to the petitioner’s father, was sent to Sandeep Shah. Sandeep Shah had transferred ₹86,300/- to this account. This money was withdrawn on the 18th. Petitioner’s father revealed on interrogation that the petitioner was authorised to operate this account. The mobile number of the petitioner, xxx820, was found linked to this account. Sandeep Shah had transferred ₹2,45,500/- to the account of Rajat Chandel. A message of transfer was sent to Sandeep Shah on 15.10.2025, and it was found that only the petitioner was transferred on that day. The petitioner formatted his mobile after the arrest of Rajat Chandel. The Mobile No. xxx083 was made available to the petitioner by Sandeep Shah. The petitioner used to be in contact with Sandeep Shah using the mobile number. xxx083 and xxx820. The petitioner had received the money in the account of his father and his friend. The petitioner was employed in the Police Department and was responsible for curbing the narcotics trade. However, he acted as a partner with Sandeep Shah. The petitioner used to receive the heroin from Sandeep Shah and distribute it by keeping it at various locations. The mobile numbers of the petitioner, xxx303 and Mobile No xxx083 were found to be in 7 2026:HHC:27516 the same location. The Mobile No. xxx083 was issued in the name of one person named Kadir Hussain, resident of Assam. However, this mobile number was used as a contact number in the customer application form of Sandeep Shah's mother, which showed that this mobile number was being used by Sandeep Shah. The money was deposited with the help of a cash deposit machine and was connected to the commission of the crime. The petitioner was a super spreader and had an important role. The petitioner would influence the trial by releasing him on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by M/s Varun Chauhan and Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him to the commission of the crime. The Police have failed to connect the mobile number xxx083 to the petitioner. The money was being deposited by using the Cash Deposit Machine, and there is no 8 2026:HHC:27516 CCTV footage to show the person who had deposited the cash. The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of any offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mukul Chauhan and others Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:14073 in support of his submissions. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner was a police official and was entrusted with the task of stopping the narcotics trade. However, he indulged in the commission of the crime in partnership with Sandeep Shah. The allegations against the petitioner are grave, and the petitioner should not be released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: 9 2026:HHC:27516 “57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being 10 2026:HHC:27516 dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering a bail application are: 11 2026:HHC:27516 (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a 12 2026:HHC:27516 prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report mentions that the petitioner's name was found to be saved by Sandeep Shah as Bhai Original. The mobile number xxx820 was used for calling the virtual numbers of Sandeep Shah on different dates via WhatsApp calls. However, the status report is silent regarding the name of the person in whose name this Mobile No. xxx820 was issued. 11. The status report also mentions that the Mobile No. xxx083 was used to talk to Sandeep Shah. However, the status report itself mentions that this mobile number xxx083 was issued in the name of Kadir Hussain, a resident of Assam. The status report does not mention that Kadir Hussain was interrogated, and he revealed that he had handed over the mobile number to Sandeep Shah or the petitioner. Thus, there is 13 2026:HHC:27516 insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the mobile number. 12. It was further stated that this mobile number was mentioned as an alternate contact number by Sandeep Shah's mother, but that by itself is not sufficient to connect the mobile number to the petitioner. 13. The status report mentions that the Mobile No. xxx083 was being used in Shimla between 15.08.2024 and 20.08.2024. One IMEI number was traced by the police to the mobile phone of the petitioner’s father-in-law, in which the mobile number was. xxx083 was used. The police interrogated the family of the petitioner's mother-in-law and found discrepancies in their statements. It is difficult to see how the discrepancies in the statements of family members of the petitioner's mother-in-law would connect the mobile handset to the petitioner. 14. The police also relied upon the deposit of the money in the account of the petitioner's father through a cash deposit machine. However, the status report is silent regarding the CCTV 14 2026:HHC:27516 footage to fix the identity of the person who had deposited the money in the cash deposit machine. 15. Therefore, the material collected by the prosecution prima facie is not sufficient to show that the petitioner was in partnership with the main accused, Sandeep Shah and had used his position as a police employee to supply narcotics to various persons. Hence, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody. 16. It was submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and he should not be released on bail. There is no dispute with the proposition that a person against whom serious allegations of the commission of a heinous crime exist should not be released on bail. However, in the present case, the allegations are not supported by any material on record. Therefore, the bail cannot be denied merely because of serious allegations of the commission of a heinous crime. 17. The police had registered the FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS. However, this Court has already found in Mukul Chauhan (supra) that the allegations in the FIR and the result of the investigation conducted by the police were not 15 2026:HHC:27516 sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 27A of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS Act. 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the present F.I.R. subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to 16 2026:HHC:27516 the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER for necessary compliance. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th July, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.07.08 15:46:10 +0530