IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1221 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.7.2026 ________________________________________________________________ Raja Ram @ Dhan Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar and Mr. Azad Kaith, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Raja Ram @ Dhan Raj, who is behind the bars since 17.6.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.24 of 2026, dated 17.3.2026, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”), registered at Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, H.P. 2 2. Pursuant to order dated 7.7.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Kushal Kumar, Police Station Manikaran, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 17.3.2026, at 3:30pm, police party present near Naka laid at Haddu Chawki, received secret information that occupants of Car bearing registration No. RJ60CH2951, which is coming from Malana to Jari side, are transporting huge quantity of contraband and accordingly, at 5:00pm, after having associated independent witnesses stopped the aforesaid vehicle for checking and found that three persons namely Udit Sharma, Kushal Awasthi and Ritik Jageer, have been sitting in the car. Police after having given their own search, conducted search of the aforesaid vehicle as well as occupants of the car and allegedly recovered on plastic bag containing 962 grams of charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband by the occupants of the car, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, as detailed herein above and arrested them and since then, they are behind bars. 4. Allegedly, aforesaid persons from whose conscious possession intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered, disclosed to the 3 police that charas recovered from them was actually purchased by them from present bail petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid information, police checked the Call Details Report as well as financial transactions, if any, inter-se co-accused and present bail petitioner and thereafter, arrested the bail petitioner. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Azad Kaith, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated because nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. He submitted that petitioner has been named in the FIR merely on the basis of statements made by the co-accused, which is not admissible under law. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance upon Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no money ever came to be deposited in the bank account of the bail petitioner. 6. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that though nothing remains to be recovered from the 4 bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He submitted that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and he had actually supplied the contraband to the co-accused, which subsequently came to be recovered by the police in the presence of independent witnesses from the co-accused. He stated that though in past, no case is registered against the petitioner, but such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to conclude his innocence, who as per investigation has sold huge quantity of contraband to the co- accused. He submited that in the event of grant of bail to the bail petitioner, he may not only flee from justice, but may indulge in these activities again. 7. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that contraband never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the present bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, who are still behind bars. Though it came to be vehemently argued by the respondent-State that sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was paid to the bail petitioner by the persons from whose conscious possession, 5 intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered, no cogent and convincing evidence qua such fact has been adduced on record. 8. Question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is “whether disclosure statement, if any, made by the co-accused would be admissible or whether same could have been used for arresting the present bail petitioner?” Otherwise also, by now it is well settled that statement made by co-accused is inadmissible in law. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh (supra), has categorically held that disclosure statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under Section 67 of the Act. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “155.Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 156.The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us. 157.On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs (2011) 12 SCC 298 are correct in law. 6 158.We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 242 of 2022 (arising out of diary No. 22702 of 2020) decided on 10.1.2022, again reiterated that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in this case upheld the order/judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka granting bail to the accused arrested by the petitioner NCB on the basis of confessional/ voluntary statement of the co- accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial. 11. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that rigors of Section 37 of the case at hand are not attracted on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this 7 Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Since, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to 8 secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 14. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 15. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be 9 enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 17. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 19. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist 10 for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. July 10, 2026 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (manjit) Judge