( 2026:HHC:38296 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1561 of 2026 Decided on 9th September, 2026 _____________________________________________________ Nikhil Thakur. …Petitioner Versus State of HP …..Respondent _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Gurdev Negi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharityaya Nagrik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking bail for allegedly having committed offenses punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), registered vide FIR No. 36 of 2026 dated 13.05.2026, at Police Station Dhalli, Shimla. 2. The status report filed by the prosecution is suggestive of the fact that on 13.05.2026, a police team headed by ASI Ambi Lal had left for patrolling and at about 2:50 AM, when the police -2- ( 2026:HHC:38296 ) patrol was present at Bypass Road, Malyana, a secret information was received that the present petitioner/accused Nikhil Thakur and one Sulabh Thapa were traveling in a black car (Venue) bearing registration number HP-27A-3580. They are carrying a huge consignment of contraband and if apprehended, a huge cache of drugs may be recovered. 3. Acting swiftly, the IO, ASI Ambi Lal, recorded the reasons of belief under Section 42(2) of the Act and sent the same to the Supervisory Officer of Police Station Dhalli through Constable Ajay Kumar. He immediately associated one passerby, Vikash Sharma, son of Shri Yogesh Dutt Sharma, as an independent witness. He also associated one HHC Sunil Kumar as the second independent witness. At about 3:20 AM, the aforesaid car was noticed coming and the present accused along with co-accused Sulabh Thapa were found traveling in the said car. After fulfilling the codal formalities, the IO had searched the vehicle, and during the course of search, the IO had recovered one cigarette packet marked “Gold Flake" beneath the footmat of the co-driver's seat in which the accused/petitioner Nikhil Thakur was sitting. Inside the packet, granular substance was found wrapped in a polythene, which on the basis of experience and exposure was found to be Chitta (Heroin) -3- ( 2026:HHC:38296 ) on weighing, was found to be 10.980 grams. Both the accused were arrested on the spot. 4. Since then, the present petitioner is in custody. During the course of investigation one Akash and Bobby had also come to be arrested on the premise that the contraband had been sold by co-accused Bobby and some online transactions had also been made by accused Nikhil in the account of Akash on the direction co-accused Bobby. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record meticulously. 6. Undisputedly, the contraband recovered is intermediate in quantity. As such, the rigours of Section 37 of the Act will not apply with the same force. 7. It further transpires from record that all the other co-accused already stands released on bail, including accused Sulabh Thapa, who was allegedly traveling in the car with the present petitioner at the time of the recovery. 8. It further transpires from record that six cases stand registered against the present petitioner, including one under Sections 303 & 307 IPC. All the six cases are still pending before the courts. However, admittedly, no case under the Act has been -4- ( 2026:HHC:38296 ) reported against the petitioner. 9. Since there is no past history of the accused/petitioner having been complicit in any offense under the Act, the principle of parity would indeed come to the rescue of the petitioner, as the co- accused Sulabh Thapa already stands enlarged on bail by the learned Special Judge-I, Shimla. The mere registration of criminal cases could not have been a bar to extend the benefit arising from the principle of parity: Had there been cases registered against the petitioner under the Act, it still could have dis-entitled the petitioner for the concession of bail. 10. Even otherwise the recovery effected from the vehicle was about 10.980 gm of chitta (Heroin). The recovery also has not been exclusively attributed to the petitioner, as the other accused Sulabh Thapa was also traveling with the accused at the relevant point of time. Without going into the merits of the said contention, suffice it to say that since the other accused including Sulabh Thapa had already been granted the discretion of bail. Keeping in view the facts that the recovery was of “intermediate quantity” and the petitioner having no past cases registered against him atleast under the Act, the petitioner would also be entitled to the dealt with in the same manner as the other accuseds. Consequently, the bail petition -5- ( 2026:HHC:38296 ) is allowed. 11. As a sequel, the petitioner is order to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court subject to the following conditions; i) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor intimidate, threaten or coerce the witnesses conversant to the facts of the case. ii) That the petitioner shall attend the trial as and when directed. iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh without the specific permission of the Court. 12. The observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined only for the purposes of the disposal of the present petition. 13. Petition stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 09.09.2026 (Ritu)