2026:HHC:33761 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1753, 1761, 1765 and 1868 of 2026 Reserved on: 23.9.2026 Decided on: 28.9.2026 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1753 of 2026 Shivanshu Dhiman ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1761 of 2026 Gaurav Sahota …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 1765 of 2026 Abhishek Sahota …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 1868 of 2026 Sudhanshu Rangra …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent 2 2026:HHC:33761 Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Lakshay Parihar, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1753 of 2026, Mr Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1761 and 1765 of 2026 and Mr Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr. MP(M) No.1868 of 2026. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking regular bail in FIR No. 57 of 2026, dated 24.05.2026, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). (Since all petitions have arisen out of a common FIR, therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police received secret information on 14.05.2026 at 7:04 AM 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:33761 regarding the sale of heroin. The police arrested Priya Devi, Sumit Kumar, and Ritik Thakur. One person ran away from the spot. The police recovered 16.06 grams of heroin during the search. The police also arrested Lakhwinder Singh, from whom 128.08 grams of heroin was recovered. No recovery was effected from the petitioners. The petitioners are implicated based on the financial transactions between them and the co-accused. The ingredients of Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied. The police have completed the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports, asserting that the police received secret information on 24.05.2026 at about 7:04 AM that the co-accused Priya was selling heroin from her home. The information was credible, and the delay in procuring the search warrant would have led to the destruction of the heroin. Hence, the information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Palampur. The police joined Narinder Bhat and Sanjeev Kumar 4 2026:HHC:33761 and went to the house of Priya. The co-accused Priya, Sumit Kumar, and Ritik Kumar were found in the house. One person ran away after seeing the police and could not be apprehended. The police searched the room and recovered 16.06 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested Priya and the co- accused. They revealed the name of the person who had absconded as Mohit. The police also arrested him. The police checked the bank account and found financial transactions. The police sent the heroin for analysis, and it was found to be diacetylmorphine. The petitioner Shivanshu Dhiman had transferred ₹1,45,000/- to Gourav Sahota and Honey. The petitioner Sudhanshu Rangra had transferred ₹1,54,282/- and ₹8,500/-to the accounts of Gourav Sahota and Honey, respectively. The petitioner Abhishek Sahota had withdrawn ₹50,000/- from the account of Gaurav Sahota on 4.5.2026. The money was remitted to his account using the scanner provided by him. The petitioner, Gourav Sahota, was operating a saloon. He had handed over his ATM card to the co-accused Abhishek Sahota. ₹22,75,500/- was transferred to his account by various persons. The petitioners are involved in the drug trade, which is adversely affecting society. They would indulge in the 2026:HHC:33761 commission of a similar offence in case of their release on bail. Therefore, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Sudhanshu Dhangra; Mr Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners Abhishek Sahota and Gourav Sahota; Mr Lakshya Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner Shivanshu Dhiman; and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Mr Atharv Sharma, Mr Jeevan Kumar, and Mr Lakshya Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent. There is no material to connect them to the commission of the crime except the statements made by the co-accused and the financial transactions, which are not sufficient to show their involvement in the commission of the crime. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 6 2026:HHC:33761 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioners had financial transactions with the co-accused for the purchase/sale of heroin. The heroin is adversely affecting the young generation, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioners. Hence, they prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. 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 a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 2026:HHC:33761 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 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 8 2026:HHC:33761 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 the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, 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. 2026:HHC:33761 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 10 2026:HHC:33761 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 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) 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308: 2026:HHC:33761 2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the police are relying upon the statements made by the co-accused to connect the petitioners to the commission of the crime. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by an accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was observed at page 568: - 44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eyes of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police officer. A confession that is made to a police officer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 12 2026:HHC:33761 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1: (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.” 12. Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1, that a confession made to a police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused implicating the petitioner. 13. A similar situation arose before this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri. L.J. 4564, and it was 2026:HHC:33761 held that a confession of the co-accused and the phone calls are not sufficient to deny bail to a person. 14. It was 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 the 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 the 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 14 2026:HHC:33761 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. 15. The police have also relied upon the financial transaction to connect the petitioners to the commission of the crime; however, that is not sufficient. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Amal E vs State of Kerala 2023:KER:39393 that financial transactions are not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of a crime. It was observed: “From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that, apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners. It is true that the documents indicate the monetary transactions between the petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the question that arises is whether the said transactions were in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish the same, apart from the confession statements of the accused, there is nothing. However, as it is an aspect to be established during the trial, I do not intend to enter into any finding at this stage, but the said aspect is sufficient to record the satisfaction of the conditions contemplated under section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the petitioner.” 16. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be detained in custody based on the statement made by the co-accused and the financial transactions. 2026:HHC:33761 17. It was submitted that the petitioner Abhishek Sahota has criminal antecedents. and is not entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission will not help the prosecution. The criminal antecedents would have been relevant had the prosecution been able to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. However, the police have failed to collect sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and he cannot be detained in custody simply because he has criminal antecedents. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024:INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused when no prima facie case is made out against him. It was observed: “10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.” 16 2026:HHC:33761 18. Therefore, the petitioner Abhishek Sahota cannot be detained in custody because he has criminal antecedents. 19. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. 20. It was submitted that the petitioners would indulge in the commission of the crime in case of their release on bail. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to deny bail. 21. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing 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 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 addresses for a continuous period of seven days without 2026:HHC:33761 furnishing the addresses 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 contacts 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. 22. 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. 23. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and learned Trial Court by FASTER. 24. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th September, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.09.28 16:26:41 +0530