IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 93 & 94 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.01.2026 Date of Decision: 02.02.2026. __ _________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No.93 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent ________________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 94 of 2026 Ankush Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the Respondents/State: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State, in both the petitions. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Vacation Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 bail in FIR No.282 of 2025, dated 22.11.2025, under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and Sections 221 and 132 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred as BNS), registered at Police Station Sadar Chamba, District Chamba (HP). Since both the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. As per the prosecution story, the police were checking the vehicles on 22.11.2025 at place Bhati Nala near Sultanpur, District Chamba (HP), at 07.00 AM. One of the police constables, namely Yog Raj No. 83, received secret information that Binta Mahajan and her son Aryan Mahajan were selling heroin and huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching their house. The police went to their house after completing the formalities. On search, they recovered one weighing machine, two burnt foil papers, one folded and brunt ₹20 currency notes and one syringe. The police also recovered 14 mobile phones and 20.65 grams of heroin/chitta. The police arrested the above occupants and seized the heroin. 3. After making inquiry from Binta Mahajan and her son Aryan Mahajan, it was found that the petitioner Rajesh Kumar had made a transaction of ₹30,800/- from the month of March 2025 to November 3 2025. Another petitioner Ankush Thakur had made a transaction of ₹53,771/- from May 2022 to November 2025. On the basis of the financial transactions the police have arrested the petitioners. 4. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents of District Chamba, they have deep roots in society and there are no chance of their absconding. They would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose while enlarging them on bail. Hence, he prayed that the bail petitions filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed and they may be enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the bail petitions and drawn the attention of the Court to the status report and submitted that the police while checking the vehicles on 22.11.2025 received secret information that Binta Mahajan and her son Aryan Mahajan were selling heroin and in case of search of their house, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The information was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Chamba, and authorization letter was issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Chamba. The police have associated Seema Kumari and Mohinder Thakur and went to the house of Binta Mahajan. The police found Aryan Mahajan in the house. On search of the house, 4 an electric weighing machine, two burnt foil papers, one burnt and one folded currency note of ₹20/- and one syringe were recovered. Binta Mahajan also came to the spot. On further search of the house, the police recovered 14 mobile phones, jewellery, 20.65 grams of heroin and ₹2,33,377/- in cash. The police seized all the articles and arrested the occupants. On checking their bank accounts, it was found that various persons including the petitioners had transferred the money in theirjoint bank account. After revealing that the petitioners had also transferred the money, the police have arrested the petitioners. 6. The petitioners had earlier filed the bail applications before the learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, HP, who vide order dated 26.12.2025 has dismissed their bail applications. 7. I have heard Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and also perused the status report. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence against the petitioners, except the financial transactions and the call detail records which is not sufficient to connect them to the commission of the offences. Since the petitioners are permanent 5 residents of District Chamba, there are no chances of their fleeing. It was argued that the police have added Section 27A of the NDPS Act, but the mere purchase of the Narcotics does not amount to financing. Hence, he prayed for releasing the petitioners of regular bail. 9. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State on the other hand argued that the petitioners are involved in the sale/purchased of heroin, which is adversely affecting the young generation in the society. Since offences committed by the petitioners are serious and heinous, no leniency should be shown to them and hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petitions. 10. No doubt the police have arrested the petitioners on the basis of the transactions with Aryan and Binta Mahajan, but solely it is not sufficient to consider that the petitioners have been involved in the commission of the alleged offences. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment has laid down the broad principles for the grant of bail in case titled, Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 31. The relevant observation are reproduced hereunder: (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. InGudikantiNarasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has 6 laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7- 9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, 7 reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 8 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order 9 (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 andPappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Keeping in view the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petitions are being decided. 13. The status report filed mentions that the police checked the bank accounts of the main accused and found that the petitioners had transferred various amounts to the main accused. This is not sufficient to connect the petitioners to the commission of a crime. The police have relied upon the call details record to conclude that the petitioners were involved in the commission of the offences. This is also not sufficient. It has been laid down by this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus 10 State of H.P. 2020 Cri. L.J. 4564, that the phone calls are not sufficient to deny bail to a person. 14. It has alsobeen laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 211 that where the police have no material, except the call details record and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. It was observed: - “[16] In the facts of the instant case, the prosecution, for implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the confessional statement made by accused Dabe Ram and secondly the CDR details of calls exchanged between the petitioner and the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking into consideration the evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details involving the phone number of the petitioner and the mobile phone number of the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner and had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. [17] Since the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold a prima facie case against the accused person(s), in Pallulabid Ahmad's case (supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for maintainability of his successive bail application as also for grant of bail in his favour. [18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC 1. Further, on the basis of the aforesaid elucidation, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 11 15. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023, Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023, decided on 06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of 2023, decided on 15.05.2023. 16. In view of the above position of law, the petitioners cannot be prima facie connected to the commission of a crime merely because of financial transactions and call detail records. 17. The police have also added Section 27A of the NDPS Act, which deals with the financing of the drugs. The term financing was explained by the Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India 2021 Cr LJ 248. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under: - “66. Section 27A is much wider if sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(viiia) is taken into account. This sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(viiia) takes in its sweep all the remaining activities which are not mentioned in sub-clauses (i),(ii) & (iii). This covers just about every activity that can be described as dealing in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The interpretation of Section 27A should not be stretched to the extent of rendering the classifica- tion of sentences depending on the quantities in penal Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 otiose. 67. Sub-clause (viiia) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act is an inclusive definition. The inclusive part mentions financing, abetting, con- spiring and harbouring. The financing and harbouring parts are specifically made punishable under Section 27A. 12 68. The activities mentioned in Section 2(viiia)(iii) and Section 8(c) refer to sale, purchase, export, import, etc. All these activi- ties involve monetary transactions. For every sale or purchase, there can be a use of money. But that will not mean that either of the parties has “financed” the transaction. Such sales and pur- chases are separately prohibited and made punishable under Sec- tion 8(c), read with Section 20 and other similar Sections. There- fore, “financing” is something more than just paying for pur- chases and other activities involving contraband as defined under Section 8(c). Contravention of that Section and indulging in activi- ties mentioned in Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 incur punishment depending on the quantity of the contraband. 69. For interpreting Section 27A harmoniously with the Scheme of the Act and other Sections, it is necessary to go to the State- ment of Objects and Reasons for incorporating this Section in the Act w.e.f. 29.5.1989. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1989 Amendment, which is reproduced hereinbefore, men- tions that India was facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spillover from such traffic was causing problems of abuse and addiction. Therefore, a need was felt to amend the Law to further strengthen it. 70. Thus, the aim was to control the traffic in illicit drugs as the spillover from such traffic was causing problems of abuse and ad- diction. The Legislature wanted to attack the basic cause of the il- licit traffic of drugs. The prohibitory Section 8 already existed at that time. Therefore, a separate Section 27A was introduced to check these activities, which were the root cause of illicit traffic. “Financing” and “harbouring” such activities were, therefore, spe- cifically mentioned under Section 27A. 71. “Financing” is not defined under the Act. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “finance” as “(1) the management of (esp. public) money, (2) monetary support for an enterprise, (3) (in pl.) the money resources of a state, company, or person, to provide capital for (a person or enterprise)”. 72. Black's Law Dictionary gives the meaning of the word “fi- nance” as “to raise or provide funds”. 73. Thus, “financing” as generally understood is offering mone- tary support or providing funds. 13 74. Therefore, simply providing money for a particular transac- tion or other transactions will not be financing of that activity. Fi- nancing will have to be interpreted to mean to provide funds for either making that particular activity operational or for sustaining it. It is the financial support that directly or indirectly causes the existence of such illicit traffic. The word “financing” would neces- sarily refer to some activities involving illegal trade or business 75. The allegations against the Applicant of spending money in procuring drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput will not, therefore, mean that she had financed illicit traffic.” (emphasis supplied) 18. There is no other material to connect the petitioners to the commission of the offences. 19. Learned Counsel for the petitionershad alsobrought the attention of this Court to the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) Nos.3042 and 3054 of 2025, where the co-accused have been enlarged on bail who had also been arrested on the basis of the financial transactions. In additions of the above reasoning, since the Coordinate Bench has also granted the regular bail to the co-accused, parity also demands that similar treatment be given to the petitioners and also to maintain judicial discipline. 20. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial 14 Court. While on bail, the petitioners will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (II) The petitioners shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (III) The petitioners 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 petitioners will surrender their passports, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioners will furnish their mobile numbers 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 numbers or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 21. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file petitions for cancellation of the bail. 22. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of District Jail, Chamba and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 15 23. However, before parting with the order, it is made clear that any observations made in the present order is only for the purpose of disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the cases. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Vacation Judge 2ndFebruary, 2026 (Anurag) Digitally signed by PRITI SHARMA DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=ccbf2aa2bbfccc940c227ea7b5767848f377 86aa1c9511f408609e1087cad527, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=991f3e605a10c986cfec42bc87 24003bc18014e482b0fef826b896ea497a2bef, CN=PRITI SHARMA Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-02-02 13:21:34 PRITI SHARMA