IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. : 171 of 2026 Reserved on : 02.03.2026 Date of Decision : 10.03.2026. Liyakat Ali ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 06/2025, dated 25.01.2025, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamaba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were patrolling on 25.01.2025. They received information at about 2:00 PM that a car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 had sped away after noticing the Nakka. The car was found abandoned at some distance, and the owner of the vehicle was identified through the e-Challan records. He disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar, whose location was found between Lahad and Kunah. The police went to the spot and found another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C 1969 parked on the road. The driver disclosed that his name is Dharu Ram. The person sitting beside the driver disclosed his name as Liyakat Ali (petitioner), and the person sitting in the rear seat disclosed his name as Harinder Kumar. The police searched the car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 in the presence of occupants of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 and recovered 2.570 kilograms of charas. Liyakat Ali and Dharu Ram ran away from the spot during the search. Police investigated the matter. Co-accused Harinder Kumar and Dharu Ram were arrested and released on bail. The petitioner was also the occupant of the car bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 and is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner 3 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 24.1.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331. The driver stopped the vehicle after seeing the police and ran towards the jungle. The police followed him but could not apprehend him. Shobhi Ram was found to be the registered owner, who was contacted telephonically. He disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar. The location of Harinder Kumar was found between Lahad and Kunah. The police searched for him and found a vehicle bearing registration No HP-01C-1969 parked on the roadside. The driver identified himself as Dharu Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Liyakat Ali (the present petitioner), and the person sitting in the rear seat identified himself as Harinder Kumar. The police brought them to the spot where the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 was parked. The vehicle was searched in the presence of Abdul Mazeed and Basheer Mohammad. The police were searching the vehicle when Dharu Ram and the petitioner ran away from the spot. The police ran after them but could not 4 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) catch them. The search was continued, and the police recovered 2.570 kgs of charas. The police seized the charas. The police investigated the matter and obtained the call detail record. The record of CCTV Footage was also checked. The vehicles bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44-5331 were found moving together in the CCTV footage. Rakesh Kumar had talked to Harinder Kumar and the petitioner many times between 7.30 AM and 12.48 PM. Police arrested Rakesh Kumar, Harinder Kumar and Dharo Ram. The petitioner surrendered before the police on 15.12.2025 and was arrested on the same day at 6:25 Pm. The supplementary charge-sheet was filed before the Court on 13.02.2026. Prosecution has cited 47 witnesses, and the matter is listed for consideration of charge on 18.03.2026. Petitioner was involved in the sale of a commercial quantity of charas. Petitioner had earlier absconded, and he would again abscond if released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 5. Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime except his presence in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969. The co-accused have already been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the vehicles bearing registration Nos. HP-01C-1969 and HP—44-5331 were found moving together. The occupants of two vehicles were in touch with each other. The police recovered a commercial quantity of charas from the vehicle bearing registration no. HP- 44-5331. The petitioner had abetted the transportation of the charas in it. The rigours of Section 37 of NDPS apply to the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:- (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu 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 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 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 7 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 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, 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, 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 8 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 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. 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; 9 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) (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 (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu 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) 10 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 9. The status report mentions that the petitioner was occupying the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969, which was moving with another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 from which the commercial quantity of charas was recovered. The mere fact that two vehicles were found to be moving one after the other on the highway is prima facie not sufficient to connect them without further evidence. 10. The status report also mentions that Rakesh Kumar, Harinder Kumar, petitioner Liyakat Ali and Dharu Ram were found to be in touch with each other on 24.01.2025 from 7:43 am till 12:48 pm. This is not sufficient. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 211 that the call details record is not sufficient to keep the person 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. 11 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) [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. A similar view was 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. 12. The allegations made by the prosecution may give rise to a suspicion, but are not sufficient to prima facie conclude that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence. 13. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 18.03.2026, which means that the investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 12 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) 14. It was submitted that the petitioner is involved in the abetment of the commercial quantity of charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS apply to the present case. This submission is not acceptable. There is nothing to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime except the calls made by him, which, prima facie, are insufficient to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Chamba, which was not stated to be incorrect in the status report. It means that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; 13 ( 2026:HHC:6380 ) (III) The petitioner 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 petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number 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 number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Chamba, and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge __March, 2026 (Sushma) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.03.10 13:11:04 +0530