1 2026:HHC:39114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. : 1573 of 2026 Reserved on :     11.09.2026 Decided on     : 14.09. 2026 Uploaded on  :   14.09.2026 Rahul …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      :  Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick & Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Rahul,   has   filed   the   present application, under Section  483  of the  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), seeking the relief of bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising   out   of  FIR   No.78   of   2025,   dated   21.07.2025, registered with  Police Station, Theog,  District Shimla, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39114 H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. According   to   the   applicant,   he   is   innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police. 3. As per the applicant, he has nothing to do with the crime in question, for which, he has been arrested by the police. 4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be complete and according to the applicant, his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the police. As such, no   useful   purpose   would   be   served   by   keeping   the applicant in the judicial custody. 5. The applicant has further pleaded that except the present case, no other case has been registered against him. 6. The   applicant   has   tried   his   luck   by   moving similar   application   before   the   Court   of   learned   Special Judge­II, Shimla, which was dismissed on 20.05.2026. 3 2026:HHC:39114 7. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 9. When   put   to   notice,   the   police   has   filed   the status report, disclosing therein, that on 21.07.2025, HC Manoj Kumar No.195, I.O. Special Cell, Shimla, submitted a rukka to Police Station Theog, for registration of FIR, mentioning   therein,   that   on   21.07.2025,   he,   along   with other   police   official,   was   on   patrolling   duty,   in   private vehicles No.HP52C­6525 and HP52C­5517, to detect the crime   relating   to   narcotics,   towards   Dhalli,   Kufri   Theog Matyana and Narkanda etc. 9.1. At   about   6.50   p.m.,   when,   the   police   party reached   at   Matyana   market,   then,   the   I.O.,   received   a secret information  that  on the road leading to Baragaon side,   a   vehicle   bearing   registration   No.HP09C­5119   has 4 2026:HHC:39114 been parked, in which, 2­3 persons are there and selling charas. 9.2. As per the information, in case, the said vehicle is searched, large quantity of Charas can be recovered and in   case   of   delay,   the   possibility   of   removal   of   the   said vehicle, as well as, the contraband is also there. 9.3. The information was found to be authentic and reliable, as such, the I.O. has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the same to his superior officer. 9.4. Thereafter,   the   I.O.,   along   with   other   police officials, proceeded towards the spot at Matiana Baragaon road and from Matiana, at about 300­400 meters ahead, when, they reached near Roni village, then, on the left side of the road, one vehicle bearing registration No.HP09­5119 was found parked. 9.5. As   soon   as,   the   I.O.,   and   the   police   officials reached near the said car, two persons alighted down from the car and fled away, whereas, the person, who was on the  wheel  was  nabbed  by  the  Police. Meanwhile,  from Matiana side, two persons were found coming, who were 5 2026:HHC:39114 apprised about the factual position and were requested to be the witnesses. On inquiry, they disclosed their names as Nishant and Sewak Ram. 9.6. In the presence of those witnesses, name and address   of   the   person   has   been   inquired,   who   has disclosed his name as Rahul Verma son of Shri Sunder Singh   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘A­1’). When   the   I.O, inquired from him about the persons, who fled away from the car, he disclosed the name of one person as Akshay Kewala (hereinafter referred to as ‘A­2’), however, according to him, he does not know the name of other person, who had fled away from the spot. 9.7. In  the presence of the  witnesses,  the  vehicle was searched, and on searching, an electronic weighing machine, as well as, contraband weighing, 2.290 kgs, was found. 9.8. After completing other codal formalities, the FIR in   question,   was   registered   and   the   contraband,   so recovered, was taken into possession. The accused was arrested. 6 2026:HHC:39114 9.9. Thereafter, the I.O. prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. A­1 was medico­ legally   examined   and   the   contraband   was,   thereafter, handed over to MHC Police Station, Theog. Thereafter, A­1 was   produced   before   the   Court,   from   where,   he   was remanded to police custody till 24.07.2025. 9.10. As per the status report, on 24.07.2025, A­2, as well as, applicant, voluntarily appeared before the police. They   were   associated   in   the   investigation. During investigation, both A­2 and applicant, disclosed that  on 21.07.2025, both of them were in the vehicle of A­1 and were on the way to Matiana, along with Charas. When, they were at Roni curve, then, they saw a vehicle, from which, some persons alighted down, and apprehending the said persons, as Police personnel, A­2 and the applicant fled away from the spot, towards the nearby orchard. On finding the involvement of A­2 and the applicant, both were arrested and Section 29 of NDPS Act was added. 9.11. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet, which is pending in the trial Court and 7 2026:HHC:39114 the prosecution has examined, as many as, 6 witnesses till date. 9.12. As per the status report, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicant. 10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 11. Admittedly, the contraband, allegedly recovered, in   this   case,   falls   within   the   definition   of   ‘commercial quantity. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court   in  Narcotics   Control   Bureau   versus   Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372, before releasing the person, involved in the crime, it is obligatory upon the Court to record the findings, which should be more than prima­facie findings, regarding existence of the twin conditions, as enumerated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. In other words, it can be said that before releasing the person, involved in the crime in issue, findings have to be recorded by the Court, about the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and while on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 8 2026:HHC:39114 12. Provisions of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, are reproduced, as under:­ (ii)  where   the   Public   Prosecutor   opposes   the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 13. In this case, admittedly, the applicant was not arrested on the spot. Interestingly, his name has not been disclosed by the person, who was allegedly nabbed with the contraband weighing 2.290 Kgs of Charas. He, on inquiry, disclosed the name of A­2, as the person, who fled from the spot and when, the identification of the third person had been inquired from him, he could not disclose the name or any physical description of the applicant. 14. In such situation, the stand of the police qua A­ 2 and the applicant voluntarily appeared before the Police are more than sufficient to record the findings that at this stage,   there   are   reasonable   grounds   to   believe   that   the applicant is not guilty of such offence and it can be said, at this stage, that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 9 2026:HHC:39114 15. The   alleged   voluntariness   of   the   applicant   to put appearance is a fact, which had not been clarified by the prosecution, neither in the status report not in the charge­sheet, which had been filed before the learned trial Court. 16. Perusal of the record shows that the police has recorded the statements of C. Rajeev No.694, HC Manoj No.134, C.Neeraj No.382, C. Vinay No.1563, C.Ram Prasad No.446,   who   have   mentioned,   in   their   statements,   that apart from A­2, a person namely Rahul, after opening the window of the car, had fled away from the spot, whereas, it is   not   the   case   of   the   police   that   the   applicant   was identified by police officials. In their statements, recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, it has not been mentioned that they had seen the persons, who had fled away from the spot, nor the description of the persons, who had fled away from the spot has been noted by the I.O., as well as, other police officials, who were present on the spot. 17. Even   otherwise,   for   the   second   condition,   as enumerated under the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act that the applicant is not likely to commit any 10 2026:HHC:39114 offence,   while   on   bail,   reasonable   conditions,   can   be imposed upon him. Consequently, the twin conditions, are found to be existing in favour of the applicant. 18. Considering all these facts, this Court has no legal hesitation to record the findings, at this stage,  that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and in case, he is ordered to be released, on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 20. Consequently,   the   applicant   is   ordered   to   be released   on   bail   in   case  FIR   No.78   of   2025,   dated 21.07.2025,   registered   with  Police   Station,   Theog, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29   of the NDPS Act, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/­, with two sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 21. This   order,   however,   shall   be   subject   to   the following conditions:­ a) Applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by 11 2026:HHC:39114 any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b)   Applicant   shall   not   tamper   with   the   prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any  manner whatsoever; c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and d)   Applicant   shall   not   leave   the   territory   of   India without the prior permission of the Court. e)   The   applicant   shall   furnish   affidavit,   in   the   first week of every month, before the learned trial Court, disclosing   therein   that   he   has   not   been   named,   as accused, in any  crime, during that period. 22. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present application. 23. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant. 24. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the   bail   order   to   the   Superintendent   Jail,   District   Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, through e­mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­prison software. 12 2026:HHC:39114 25. In   case,   the   applicant   is   not   released   within   a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, is   directed   to   inform   this   fact   to   the   Secretary,   DLSA, Shimla. The   Superintendent   Jail,   District   Jail,   Kaithu, District Shimla, is further directed that if the applicants fail to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court  within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 14, 2025 ( ps ) PRADEEP Digitally signed by PRADEEP Date: 2026.09.14 16:50:37 +0530