1 2026:HHC:39552 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1555 of 2026 Decided on : 16.9.2026 Tula Ram ..Applicant Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2025, dated 18.11.2025, registered under Sections 20 & 29 2 2026:HHC:39552 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. 3. The applicant has pleaded that the investigation, in the present case, is complete, as the police has filed the charge-sheet before the competent court of law. Asserting the fact that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 4. In addition to this, it has also been pleaded that as per the allegations leveled against the applicant, his involvement, in the present case, has not been proved. 5. The applicant has earlier tried his luck by moving the application, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge (II), Sirmaur District at Nahan. 3 2026:HHC:39552 However, his application has been dismissed on 06.04.2026. Thereafter, he has also filed the application, bearing CMP No. 900 of 2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn, on 16.06.2026. 6. According to the applicant, the case is now listed on 08.09.2026, for checking of copies of challan, and all these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the chances of commencement and conclusion of the trial, against the applicant are not so bright. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for the relief of bail on the ground of parity also, as his co-accused Suresh Chand has been released on bail by this Court, on 31.3.2026, in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 95 of 2026. 8. Apart from this, the applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 4 2026:HHC:39552 9. On all these submissions, Shri Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Bhairav Gupta, Advocate has pleaded that during the pendency of the trial, applicant may kindly be released on bail. 10. When, put to notice, the Police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 18.11.2025, Constable HC Pramod No. 74 has submitted a ruqua to Police Station, Shillai, disclosing therein that on the aforesaid date, he alongwith, other police officials, was on patrolling duty, as well as, duty to detect the crime, relating to excise and narcotics. At about 2:05 a.m., one car was coming from Ronhat and moving towards Shillai. The I.O. signalled to stop the vehicle, upon which, the driver of the said car stopped the car on the wrong side of the road. Two persons were found sitting in the car. The registration of the car was found to be HP01N0502. The person, who was sitting by the side of the driver, was having a carry bag in his lap. Both the persons got perplexed, upon which, the IO 5 2026:HHC:39552 inquired from the person, sitting on the conductor side about the contents of the carry bag and also inquired from the driver as to why he has parked the car on the wrong side of the road. Both the persons could not give any satisfactory answer to the query put by the I.O., upon which, the I.O. developed a suspicion that the carry bag, held by person, sitting on the conductor seat, might be containing some objectionable item. As such, he has decided to search the car and the bag. 10.1 Since, it was odd hours of the night, as such, no person was found there, upon which, a police official, telephonically apprised the Up-Pradhan of Shiri Kiari and requested him to come present to the spot. At about 2:20 a.m., the Up-Pradhan, alongwith one another local person, namely Kali Ram came there. Both of them were associated in the investigation as independent witnesses. In the presence of independent witnesses, names and addresses of the occupants of the car were inquired. 6 2026:HHC:39552 On inquiry, one person has disclosed his name as Ram Chander, whereas, the other person has disclosed his name as Tula Ram (applicant). Thereafter, the carry bag was searched, which, on opening, was found containing a white coloured envelope, in which, stick shaped black coloured substance was found, which, on the basis of smell and experience was found to be charas. The identification memo was prepared and on weighing, the charas was found to be 1 kg 584 grams. 10.2 Other codal formalities were completed and vehicle was taken into possession. The ruqua was prepared, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. 10.3 Both Tula Ram (applicant) and Ram Chand were arrested at about 7:05 a.m. on 18.11.2025. Thereafter, both the accused were medico-legally examined at CHC Shillai. On 18.11.2025, accused persons were produced before the Court of learned JMFC, Shillai, District Sirmour, HP and contraband was produced before the Court, where, inventory 7 2026:HHC:39552 proceedings under Section 52(2) of the ND&PS Act were conducted. Thereafter, the contraband was grinded, which, on weighment was found to be 1 kg 506 grams. Two samples of 40-40 grams were separated. The samples were sent for chemical analysis to SFSL, Junga. 10.4 Thereafter, authorization was obtained from the SDPO office Paonta Sahib to search the houses of accused Ram Chander and Tula Ram (applicant), but nothing incriminating was found. 10.5 During investigation, accused Ram Chander has disclosed that he had discussed about the purchase of the charas from a person, who is resident of Kupvi and consulted with his cousin Tula Ram (applicant), who drives taxi in Shimla. Thereafter, both of them had gone to Kupvi in car No. HP-01N-0502. At about 6 p.m., they reached Kupvi, where they had purchased charas from Suresh Chand for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. The amount of Rs. 45,000/- was paid to Suresh Chand, through G-Pay. 8 2026:HHC:39552 Rest of the amount was agreed to be paid after selling the Charas. Similar version has been given by applicant Tula Ram. 10.6 During police custody, accused Ram Chander has also disclosed that he has purchased charas from Suresh Chand R/o Kupvi. Thereafter, bank record from UCO Bank, Branch Shillai was obtained. As per the bank document, on 17.11.2025, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was transferred twice in bank account No. 17280110015216. The said account was found to be in the name of Suresh Chand. As such, upon the involvement of Suresh Chand, in the present case, Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added, in this case. 10.7 It is the further case of the Police that on 19.12.2025, the applicant was arrested and was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., from where, he was remanded to police custody. During investigation, he has disclosed to the Police 9 2026:HHC:39552 that he has prepared the charas weighing 1.584 kg, during the months of July, August and September and after selling the same, he wanted to earn the money. As such, he has negotiated with accused Ram Chander to sell the same for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. Consequently, he has sold the same, upon which, Ram Chander had transferred a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in two different accounts, through Google Pay, and rest of amount of Rs. 45,000/- was to be paid after selling the charas. 10.8 As per the further case of the Police, CDRs of mobile phone of accused Suresh Chand and Ram Chander were obtained and it was found that on 16/17.11.2025, they had talked to each other, on various occasions. Their tower location was also found to be at the same location. FSL report is stated to have been received. 10.9. Lastly, it has been pleaded that during financial investigation, no movable or immovable 10 2026:HHC:39552 property, has been found to have been earned illegally. 10.10 After the completion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet. Highlighting the seriousness of the offence, it has been pleaded that in case, the applicant is released on bail, it would give a wrong signal to the society that after being involved, in such a heinous offence, the applicant is moving freely, in the society. 11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 12. 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 prima- facie 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 11 2026:HHC:39552 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. 13. 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. 14. The applicant was allegedly found driving the vehicle No. HP-01N-0502 along with accused Ram Chander. When, the I.O. gave signal to stop the vehicle driven by the applicant, he allegedly stopped the car on the wrong side of the road, and according to the I.O., both the occupants of the vehicle got perplexed, on seeing the Police. 15. When, I.O. inquired from the person sitting on the conductor seat, about the contents of the carry bag, which he was having in his lap, then he 12 2026:HHC:39552 could not give the satisfactory answer. Meaning thereby, the bag allegedly containing the contraband was not kept concealed in the car, as the same was allegedly in the lap of co-accused Ram Chander. The vehicle driven by the applicant, according to the police, is taxi. The fact that the applicant and Ram Chander are from the same village, to the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, is too short to connect the applicant with the crime in question. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 1221 of 2017, titled as, ‘Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. State of Karnataka’, has held that when the contraband was not kept concealed in the taxi, but, was visible, the taxi driver cannot be convicted. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under: “6. The Courts below have convicted the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant was not able to give details of the passengers. Ordinarily, since it is not disputed that the appellant was a taxi driver and that the contraband was seized from the taxi while he was carrying two passengers who fled from the scene, it cannot be said with any certainty that 13 2026:HHC:39552 the appellant himself was carrying the contraband or has connived to carry the said contraband in his vehicle. It was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner before allowing the passenger to board the taxi ask for such details from the passenger(s). Moreover, no effort was made to search out the two passengers who may reveal the truth. 7. Considering the fact that no incriminating material was seized from the person of the appellant and that he had not made any effort to run away, moreover, the two bags from which the contraband was seized were not found to be hidden but were rather visible, we find no material on record to link the appellant-driver with the aforesaid contraband so as to prosecute and convict him for any offence under the NDPS Act.” 17. 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. 15. Moreover, co-accused Suresh has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2026, passed in CMP No. 95 of 2026. As such, the 14 2026:HHC:39552 applicant is entitled for the relief of bail, on the ground of parity. 16. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 17. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 66 of 2025, dated 18.11.2025, registered under Sections 20, 29-61-85 of the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 18. 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 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 15 2026:HHC:39552 d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. f) 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. 19. 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 bail application. 20. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant. 21. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 22. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, 16 2026:HHC:39552 the Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Nahan is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Sirmour. The Superintendent of the Model Central Jail, Nahan is further directed that if the applicant fails 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 16.9.2026 Kalpana KALPANA Digitally signed by KALPANA Date: 2026.09.16 17:56:59 +0000