2026:HHC:35540 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No. 4402 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (C- DB) No. 5 of 2025 & Cr.MP No. 3889 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (C-DB) No. 9 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.8.2026 Decided on: 21.8.2026 Uploaded on: 21.8.2026 1. Cr.MP No. 4402 of 2025 in Cr.A.(C-DB) No. 5 of 2025 Rasheed Khan …Appellant/Applicant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. 2. Cr.M.P. No. 3889 of 2025 in Cr. A (C-DB) No. 9 of 2025 Arif Khan. ...Appellant/Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicants. Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate, for the applicant in Cr.M.P. No. 4402 of 2025. Mr.Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Bhairav Gupta, Advocate, for applicant in Cr.M.P. No. 3889 of 2025. For the Respondent: Mr.Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge These applications have been filed by the applicants/appellants in respective appeals bearing Cr. Appeal (C-DB) No.5 of 2025 and Cr. Appeal (C-DB) No. 9 of 2025 for suspension of their sentence as they are serving sentence in jail for having been convicted vide judgment dated 6.8.2025 passed by Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba in Case No. 18 of 2021, titled State of H.P. vs. Rashid Khan and another, in Case FIR No. 191 of 2020 dated 9.12.2020, registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), and awarded sentence vide order dated 6.8.2025 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of 1,20,000/-, and ₹ in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that there are major discrepancies and flaws in the evidence led by the prosecution and, therefore, there is a fair chance of acquittal of the applicants. It has been submitted that according to the prosecution case, contraband was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for verifying the inventory and taking samples on 9.12.2020, and the sample was drawn in presence of 3 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 Judicial Magistrate. After resealing the contraband, order dated 9.12.2020 (Ex. PW-58/PW-16) was passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 3. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, has submitted that from para 4 of the order dated 9.12.2020, it is apparent that before taking the sample, the contraband was not mixed together to ensure a representative sample of the entire contraband after mixing the same to make it homogeneous in nature. It has been submitted that there is not a single word or utterance in the aforesaid order that the entire alleged recovered contraband was mixed in any manner, rather it has been stated by the Judicial Magistrate that two samples of 28 grams each were drawn in his presence and they were sealed. The manner in which the samples were taken has not been stated in the order and, therefore, it is valid to presume that the entire recovered contraband was not mixed, nor it was made homogeneous before taking samples of 28 grams. 4. It has been further submitted by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, that PW-6 Kuldeep Singh, Deputy Ranger, who on 18.12.2020 was on duty at Tunuhatti Barrier of the Forest Department. Referring his statement, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this witness, in his deposition in the Court, has stated that an NC vehicle HP- 73-9446 was checked by police and under the seat of driver, a light blue colored polythene bag containing black-colored hard substance was recovered. The bag was taken by the police to their Check Post along with 4 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 driver. Thereafter, recovered charas on weighing on an electronic scale was found to be 1.269 Kilograms. Thereafter, police officials took into possession documents of the vehicle and put the bag in a cloth parcel and a memo was prepared. Thereafter, second Investigating Officer ASI came on spot and he recorded his statement and thereafter he went to his Check Post. He has witnessed photography of the area by the Police. He was declared hostile for resiling from his previous statement. 5. According to the prosecution story, PW-6 was a witness to the recovery of contraband 1.269 Kilograms recovered from an Alto Car bearing No. HP-01C-1539 near the Forest Police Post during intervening night between 8th and 9th December, 2020. The witness has denied the aforesaid facts rather, it has been stated that a light blue-colored polythene bag containing hard substance was recovered underneath the driver's seat of NC Vehicle No. HP-73-9446. This witness is well acquainted with the Police and is an official in the Forest Department and has no relation with the accused persons, but he has not only denied the recovery of contraband in his presence from Alto Car No. HP-01C-1539, but has stated that charas was recovered from NC Vehicle No. HP-73-9446. 6. It has been further canvassed on behalf of applicants that as a matter of fact a Vehicle NC was stopped wherefrom charas was recovered on the very same day during the same interval of time and in this regard FIR No. 192 of 2020 was registered in Police Station Chowari, District 5 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 Chamba, H.P. against one Ramzan and after presenting challan against Ramzan, the trial was concluded and, by the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.8.2023, accused Ramzan was acquitted. Copy of judgment has been placed on record by filing an application. The list of witnesses in the said judgment depicts that PW-6 Kuldeep Singh was not examined as a witness in the said case, whereas Kuldeep Singh in his deposition in present case has re-iterated the story of the prosecution as was submitted before the Court in case FIR No. 192 of 2020, registered against Ramzan, referring recovery of contraband from vehicle No. HP-73-9446, being driven by Ramzan. 7. Perusal of judgment placed on record reveals that on 19.12.2020 at about 4:33 AM, ASI Rajpal, along with other Police Officials during routine patrolling duty, had laid a Naka near Tunuhatti Forest Barrier, District Chamba, where they recovered 1.184 Kilograms of charas from the dashboard of the vehicle being driven by Ramzan and no other person was in the vehicle. In the said case recovery of 1.184 Kilograms was alleged. 8. With aforesaid information on record, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Investigating Officer as well as prosecution Agency has not come with clean hands, rather there is some concocted story, because Investigating Officer in present case, examined as PW-16 (ASI Virender Singh), in his cross-examination has submitted that first 6 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 Investigating Officer, HC Sanjeev Kumar, handed over the investigation in present case to him at 2:20 AM. and thereafter, Police Party remained on the spot till 8:00-8.30 AM and during that period Police Party did not nab any other person nor registered any case under the NDPS Act and he had received the case file around 8:00 A.M. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that recovery of contraband in Ramzan’s case has been claimed at about 4.30 A.M. Further that, it has come in evidence, specifically PW-16 SI Virender Singh has admitted that there is Taxation Office situated opposite the Police Chowki at Tunuhatti at a distance of merely 5 meters, where chowkidar remains present. The spot map prepared by him clearly depicts that the Police Post Tunuhatti and the Forest Checkpost are adjacent to each other as between them only one barber shop is there. It has been contended that when, according to the prosecution case against Ramzan, contraband was recovered at 4:30 AM near the Forest Checkpost, then the Investigating Officer and Police Party present on the spot in present case within a radius/distance of 10 meters, did not notice any other Police Party or recovery of charas from Ramzan. It has been specifically denied by PW- 16 that no Police Party had arrived on the spot during that period, when he was at Tunuhatti between 2:00 AM to 8:00 AM. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the prosecution case is not based on 7 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 truth and thus veracity of the investigation is under cloud; and it appears that entire proceedings were carried out in the Police Station and applicants have been implicated for extraneous reasons. It has been submitted that from the memo of arrest it appears that applicants were arrested on 19.12.2020 at about 7:50 AM at Tunuhatti. If really both Police Parties were present at one spot at one and the same time, within a periphery of 10 meters, but they did not notice each other, is highly doubtful. 11. Mr.Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate has submitted that there are other discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence produced by the prosecution, however, for the purpose of determining the possibility of acquittal of the applicants in present case, above referred submissions with regard to relevant evidence which create doubt about the genesis of the prosecution case, are only being referred for the purpose of suspension of sentence. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that it has been proved on record in the evidence of police official witnesses that charas was recovered from the vehicle, being occupied by applicants and link evidence regarding recovery of contraband, chemical examination thereof and production of samples in Court, is more then sufficient to connect the applicants/appellants with commission of the offence. 13. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants also filed application, wherein the State was directed to 8 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 provide CCTV footage of the area pertaining to the relevant dates and time, however, the same was not provided by the Police by saying that it was not functioning on that date. According to learned counsel for the applicants CCTV footage was not provided deliberately because nothing had happened on the spot, as has been alleged in the prosecution case. 14. Considering the aforesaid submissions, we are of the opinion that balance of convenience lies in favour of suspension of sentence imposed upon the applicants. 15. Accordingly, substantive sentence imposed upon the applicants is ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the appeals, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- each with ₹ one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, undertaking therein to appear in Court as and when directed to do so, and to surrender to serve the remaining sentence in case appeals are dismissed. Applicants shall also not indulge in illegal activity, much less in commission of similar nature of offence and in case breach of this condition, suspension of sentence of the applicants shall be liable to be cancelled. 16. Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial Court to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record. 9 2026:HHC:35540 Cr.M.P Nos. 4402 & 3889 of 2025 17. Any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding present application. 18. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall not insist for production of certified copy of order, rather Trial Court shall verify passing of this order from the Web-page of the High Court. The applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. 21st August, 2026 (Keshav)