2026:HHC:12223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 121 of 2025. Reserved on : 07.04.2026. Date of decision: 20.04.2026 _____________________________________________________________________________ Maheshwar Singh ...Applicant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. ____________________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 _____________________________________________________________________________ For the Applicant. Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Applicant-appellant has filed this application for suspension of sentence awarded to him for his conviction, vide judgment dated 21.02.2025 and order dated 24.02.2025, passed by Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in RBT NDPS Case No. 96-D/VII/23/2022, in case FIR No. 118 of 2022, dated 16.10.2022, registered in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., under 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 Section 20 of NDPS Act, whereby he has been convicted to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 years, for having been found in possession 1.148 kg Charas. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that there is a fair chance of acquittal of the applicant-appellant for following discrepancy in record, which goes to the root of the case, demolishing the genesis of the prosecution’s story. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- appellant that it is case of the prosecution that the police party left the Police Station Palampur at 5:42 A.M. and they laid a Nakka near Agro Petrol Pump Nallah near Maranda. At about 6:15 A.M., applicant- appellant came in car bearing registration No. HP65-7719 from Kalu-Di- Hatti towards Maranda, which was signaled to stop by ASI Narender Singh (Investigating Officer). The car stopped hitting the barricade of the police. Car driver was made to alight car and inquired and he could not give satisfactory response about the reason to try to flee from the spot and he was perplexed. He disclosed his identity as applicant-appellant and his conduct created suspicion of having some narcotic substance or any illegal article, which necessitated for search of the car. Accordingly, a communication was prepared under Section 41(2) of Narcotic Drugs and 3 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) for obtaining authorization from Sub Divisional Officer/DSP Palampur by sending request through Whatsapp and, thereafter, situation of the spot was communicated to SDPO telephonically, whereupon SDPO granted oral permission to search the vehicle. At that time, no one was found crossing the spot, whereupon Constable Satpal was sent for bringing independent witnesses and after about 10 minutes, he came back along with independent witness Robin Singh. Apart from him, on the petrol pump or around that, no one was found, whereupon Robin and Satpal were associated in the search and seizure process and police party gave search to the applicant/appellant and memo of search, of police team and investigation kit, was prepared and signed by the witnesses as well as applicant/appellant. Thereafter, car was searched and a cloth carry bag was found under the driving seat, which was taken out and opened. Two tape wrapped Khakhi packets were found thereunder. On opening these packets, cylindrical black substance was found therein, which, on the basis of experience and smelling was identified as Charas. 4. After aforesaid entire process, recovered contraband was taken in possession and seizure memo was prepared by sealing it with stamp and, thereafter NCB form was filled in triplicate. 4 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 5. According to prosecution, after seizing the contraband recovered from car, consent of the applicant-appellant for his personal search was obtained under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, however, nothing was found in his personal search. 6. Finding a case of commission of offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act, ruqua was sent to the Police Station at 10:15 A.M., whereupon FIR No. 118/22 was registered in Police Station Palampur and DSP Palampur also came on the spot after about 35 minutes and he orally permitted to take personal search of applicant-appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that request for authorization (Ext. P46/PW9) to search the car was submitted by the Investigating Officer ASI Narender Singh by sending written request, as required under Section 41(2) of NDPS Act. In this document, Investigating Officer has mentioned time of preparation as 6:25 A.M. Endorsement of SDPO about receiving this request is in Ext. P10/PW3, wherein it has been recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer that request was received at 6:30 A.M. on his mobile phone through Whatsapp and, thereafter, permission was granted through Whatsapp for search and after taking out print from Whatsapp, request was kept in his office record. 5 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 8. As per prosecution, thereafter, Satpal was sent for searching independent witnesses and he came back after about 10 minutes. Then, personal search of police party was given to the applicant- appellant and memo (Ext. P13/PW4) was prepared in this regard, which was signed by the witnesses as well as applicant-appellant. Thereafter, search of the car was conducted. Learned counsel for the applicant- appellant has submitted that in such manner Satpal came back with witness between 6:40 A.M.-6:45 A.M. Thereafter, five persons gave personal search to applicant-appellant and in case 1½ – 2 minutes per head were consumed during this search, then search was completed after about 7-10 minutes. Meaning thereby, it was 6:55 A.M. and, thereafter, memo of Jamatalashi of police team and investigation kit was prepared, which was signed by the witnesses and applicant-appellant and if further 3-5 minutes would have been taken for this, then it became 7:00 P.M. according to aforesaid timeline. It is apparent that search of the vehicle was conducted after 7:00 A.M. and, thereafter, the bag was recovered, which was kept on the bonnet and its knots were opened thereafter. Polly wrapper was opened and then black coloured substance was recovered. It may have taken atleast 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, contraband was seized by putting it in parcel of cloth and by sealing it with seal ‘N’ and, thereafter, NCB form in triplicate was filled. All these 6 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 process must have taken atleast 20-25 minutes and, thereafter, NCB form was filled and timeline shows that this process may have been completed by 7:25 A.M.-7:30 A.M. 9. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant has pointed out that in NCB-1 form (Ext. P3/PW2) in column No. 3, indicating date, time and place of seizure, time of seizure has been mentioned as 6:15 A.M. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that it is not possible that permission to search the car was granted at 6:30 A.M. and contraband was recovered at 6:15 A.M. Referring the aforesaid timeline, he has submitted that in no event it is possible to recover the Charas prior to permission for searching the vehicle and in case prosecution’s story is accepted to be true, then seizure of the contraband would have taken place at about 7:20 A.M.-7:30 A.M. 11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- appellant that this discrepancy with respect to time cannot be taken lightly for the reason that PW-4 Constable Satpal Sharma in his cross- examination has admitted that many employees used to remain at Agro Petrol Pump round the clock and houses of the residents also exist about 100-150 meters away from the pump, but he did not call anyone from the petrol pump or the houses, with statement that he met Robin Singh, who was having tea stall and he called him only. 7 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 12. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant has further submitted that PW-6 HASI Jyoti Prakash in his cross-examination has stated that ASI Narender Singh prepared the documents in one go from portion A to A in memo (Ext. P16/PW4). Ext. P16/PW4 is consent of the applicant-appellant obtained under Section 50 of NDPS Act. Portion A starts from top to the option given to the applicant-appellant. This portion also contains FIR number. Admittedly, this consent was taken before sending the ruqua and at that time FIR was not registered, but this document contains FIR number at the top. He has further submitted that PW-9 ASI Narender Singh in his cross-examination has also stated that column No. 1 to 8 in NCB form, memo (Ext. P14/PW4) and portion A to A of consent (Ext. P16/PW4) were written by him in one go on the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that in all these documents, FIR number has been mentioned at the time of preparation of these documents, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, whereas at the time of preparation of these documents, no FIR had been registered and, therefore, it creates doubt about the veracity of prosecution’s case. 13. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also referred memo of information of arrest (Ext. P18/PW4), which was written by the Investigating Officer at the time of alleged arrest, but this document creates doubt about credibility of prosecution case, as in the Form, space 8 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 left mentioning time is blank, wherein it has been stated that today dated 16.10.2022 at ____ time, applicant-appellant was arrested (Aaj Dinak 16/10/22 Ko Samay ___ Baje). Learned counsel for the applicant- appellant submits that blank column with respect to time of arrest clearly indicates that documents have not been prepared as claimed by the prosecution on the spot, which also creates doubt about the entire story of the prosecution. All documents appear to have been prepared in the Police Station, but not as claimed by the prosecution. With aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that a fair chance of acquittal is made out. 14. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that a mistake committed by the Investigating Officer in NCB form in mentioning time of seizure is easily explainable, as the car was stopped by the police at 6:15 A.M. and, therefore, by mistake the time 6:15 A.M. has been mentioned in NCB form, whereas other material on record clearly indicates that there is no scope of interference of conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of Charas. He has submitted that infact in the ruqua time 6:15 A.M. has been mentioned for arrival of the car on the spot and the same time inadvertently has been mentioned in the NCB form. However, there is no explanation with respect to blank kept in the memo 9 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 of arrest and also preparation of documents in one go, including writing FIR number therein, whereas those documents were prepared before registration of FIR. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also submitted that ruqua was prepared later on, whereas NCB form was filled prior to that and, therefore, it is beyond comprehension that time mentioned in ruqua regarding stopping of the car of applicant-appellant has been inadvertently written in NCB form also. 16. Taking into consideration aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage a fair chance of acquittal appears to be made out and, therefore, substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant-appellant, vide judgment dated 21.02.2025 and order dated 24.02.2025, passed by Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in RBT NDPS Case No. 96-D/VII/23/2022, in case FIR No. 118 of 2022, dated 16.10.2022, registered in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 20 of NDPS Act, is suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited. On furnishing the requisite bail bonds, he be released forthwith, however, with the 10 2026:HHC:12223 Cr.M.P. No. 5241 of 2025 undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant/appellant will surrender before the Court. 17. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. 20th April, 2026 (Susheel)