2026:HHC:35786 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1375 of 2026 Reserved on : 21.08.2026 Decided on: 24.8.2026 Ankush …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Aditya Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has .led the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 75 of 2026, dated 22.3.2026, registered for the commission of o3ences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the police arrested the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR at the instance of some vested 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35786 interest having animosity with the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle and recovered 08 grams of heroin from Jatin Kumar. The heroin was not recovered from the petitioner's possession, and there is no material to connect him to the commission of the crime. The police have .led the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner's possession is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by .ling a status report asserting that the police intercepted a vehicle bearing the registration No. T-2-25-HP-4892B on 22.03.2026 at about 07.50 AM as per the secret information received by the police. The driver identi.ed himself as Avinash; the person sitting beside the driver identi.ed himself as Ankush, the present petitioner, and the persons sitting on the rear seat identi.ed themselves as Jatin and Ram Kishan. Jatin had a carry bag on his lap. The police checked the carry bag in the presence of Avinash and Ram Kishan 3 2026:HHC:35786 and recovered 8 grams of heroin and a cough syrup. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and Jatin Kumar. The heroin was sent to the FSL, and as per the report, it was found to be diacetylmorphine. The petitioner and Jatin also pointed out the place from where the heroin was purchased by them. FIR No. 85 of 20 and FIR No. 82 of 21 have been registered against the petitioner. The police have .led a charge sheet before the Court on 30.04.2026, and the matter was listed before the learned Special Judge on 05.08.2026 for supply of the documents. Hence the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Aditya Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Aditya Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The carry bag was found in the lap of Jatin, and there is nothing to connect the petitioner to it. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 4 2026:HHC:35786 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was travelling in the vehicle from which the recovery was e3ected, and the petitioner was in possession of the heroin. The heroin is adversely a3ecting the young generation, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The Court considering the bail application has to consider the following factors2: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the o3ence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or Ceeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the o3ence being repeated; 2 Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 reiterated in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 5 2026:HHC:35786 (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being inCuenced; and (viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the o3ence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of Ceeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating o3ences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the o3ence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the police had found four persons travelling in the vehicle. The driver identi.ed himself as Avinash, the person sitting on the front seat identi.ed himself as Ankush, and the persons sitting on the rear seats identi.ed themselves as Jatin Kumar and Ram Kishan. Jatin had 6 2026:HHC:35786 kept the carry bag on his lap. The police associated driver Avinash and the person sitting on the rear seat, Ram Kishan, as witnesses and apprehended Jatin Kumar and Ankush. It is not explained how the police concluded that Avinash and Ram Kishan were not possessing the heroin, but the petitioner was possessing it. It is undisputed that the carry bag was kept on the lap of Jatin. Therefore, when the police had exonerated two persons by concluding that they were not in possession, it is diHcult to see how the third person, who was sitting beside the driver and not on the rear seat, could have been implicated by the police. Therefore, prima facie there is insuHcient material to conclude that the petitioner was in possession of the heroin. 12. The police interrogated the petitioner and Jatin, and they disclosed the place where they had purchased the heroin. The status report does not show that any recovery was e3ected at that place or even that any person was discovered by the police. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioner and the co- accused would not prima facie fall within the purview of Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)3. 3 Gajrani vs. Emperor, AIR 1933 Allahabad 394 and State of Maharashtra Versus Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 S.C. 169 7 2026:HHC:35786 13. The police also relied upon the disclosure statement, the statement made by the petitioner and the co-accused that they had purchased the heroin. However, the statement made by an accused during custody to the police is inadmissible in evidence4. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a disclosure statement made by him. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he would indulge in the commission of the crime if released on bail. This submission will not help the petitioner. The criminal antecedents would have been relevant had the police made out a prima facie case against the petitioner, but will not be material when no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner5. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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: - 4 Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 5 Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 8 2026:HHC:35786 (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he inCuence 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 the Police/Court within .ve days from the date of the change. 16. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to .le a petition for cancellation of the bail. 17. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 9 2026:HHC:35786 18. 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 24th August, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.08.24 15:07:33 +0530