Tule Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr.A.(C-DB) No. 39 of 2026 15.09.2026 Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocates, for the appellant- applicant. Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. CRMP No. 2550 of 2026 After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to agree with him that a prima-facie case is made out for suspension of sentence. The applicant-appellant has been found travelling alone in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP01C- 0612 along with contraband, i.e., 6.324 Kilograms of Charas and 413 Grams of Opium, which was hidden in dickey of the car below the cardboard as well as under the front seat of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that applicant was only driver of the taxi and his services were hired by the other accused persons for transporting their luggage, whereas no such defence has been taken during cross-examination of Investigating Officer as well as in the statement of applicant-appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is also apt to record that it was not the luggage kept in the dickey or seat of the vehicle, but was that the contraband was recovered, being hidden under the cardboard of the dickey as well as under the seat and, therefore, there is no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant-applicant has also submitted that in a similar case, i.e., Cr. Appeal No. 1221 of 2017, titled Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale vs. The State of Karnataka, taxi driver was acquitted by the Apex Court. Facts of the said case are entirely different, as in that case the taxi driver was carrying passengers along with their luggage, whereas in present case, the taxi driver himself was driving the taxi and was traveling alone, and the recovery of the contraband was made from the bags hidden under the cardboard of the dickey and also one bag was found kept under the front seat. Faced with the queries raised by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that this application be disposed of, without returning findings on merits, with regard to the submissions made by him. Therefore, as prayed, the application is disposed of in terms of the prayer, being rejected. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Bhupesh Sharma) Judge 15th September, 2026 (Susheel)