1 2026:HHC:9414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 95 of 2026

Reserved on : 25.3.2026

Decided on : 31.3.2026

Suresh Chand

..Applicant

Versus

State of H.P.

..Respondent

_______________________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the Applicant :Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent :Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl.

A.G., assisted by ASI

Parmanand, Police Station,

Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.

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

2 2026:HHC:9414

18.11.2025, registered under Sections 20, 29-61-85

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 innocent

person and has falsely been implicated in the present

case.

3. No recovery is stated to have been effected

from the applicant.

4. As per the case of the applicant, his

involvement is based upon the alleged revelations

made by Ramesh Chand, who was arrested in the

present case. He has termed the allegations levelled

against him, as false and concocted one.

5. Investigation of the present case is stated to

be complete. All these facts have been pleaded to

demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the

applicant is no longer required by the Police.

6. The applicant has tried his luck by moving

similar application, before the learned Special Judge-

3 2026:HHC:9414

1, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., however, the

same was dismissed on 15.12.2025.

7. On the basis of above facts, 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.

8. 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

4 2026:HHC:9414

of the driver, was having a carry bag in his lap. Both

the persons got perplexed, upon which, the IO

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.

8.1 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

5 2026:HHC:9414

presence of independent witnesses, names and

addresses of the occupants of the car were inquired.

On inquiry, one person has disclosed his name as

Ram Chander, whereas, the other person has

disclosed his name as Tula Ram. 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.

8.2 Other codal formalities were completed and

vehicle was taken into possession. The ruqua was

prepared, on the basis of which, FIR was registered.

8.3 Both the accused Tula Ram 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

6 2026:HHC:9414

JMFC, Shillai, District Sirmour, HP and contraband

was produced before the Court, where, inventory

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.

8.4 Thereafter, authorization was obtained from

the SDPO office Paonta Sahib to search the houses of

accused Ram Chander and Tula Ram, but nothing

incriminating was found.

8.5 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, 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 (applicant) for

7 2026:HHC:9414

a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. The amount of Rs. 45,000/-

was paid to Suresh Chand, through G-Pay. Rest of

the amount was agreed to be paid after selling the

Charas. Similar version has been given by accused

Tula Ram.

8.6 During police custody, accused Ram Chander

has also disclosed that he has purchased charas

from Suresh Chand (applicant) 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 (applicant) As such, upon the involvement of

the applicant, in the present case, Section 29 of the

NDPS Act was added, in this case.

8.7 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.,

8 2026:HHC:9414

from where, he was remanded to police custody.

During investigation, he has disclosed to the Police

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.

8.8 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.

9 2026:HHC:9414

8.9.Lastly, it has been pleaded that during

financial investigation, no movable or immovable

property, has been found to have been earned

illegally.

8.10On the basis of above, a prayer has been

made to dismiss the bail application.

9. Involvement of the applicant, in the present

case, as per the stand taken by the Police, was found

on the basis of alleged disclosure/revelations made

by the co-accused, during investigation, as in the

status report, it has been mentioned that accused

Ram Chander has disclosed that he had purchased

the charas, for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from Suresh

Chand. On the basis of said revelation, the Police has

proceeded further by obtaining bank record and

according to the Police, it has been found that on

17.11.2025, at about 6:20 p.m., an amount of Rs.

45,000/- was transferred in the account of Suresh

Chand.

10 2026:HHC:9414

10. Apart from this, bank transactions have also

been relied upon as the evidence to connect the

accused with the crime in question.

11. The third ground, upon which, the bail

application has been opposed is that the tower

location of the mobile phones of accused Ram

Chander and Suresh Chand (applicant) was found

under the same tower and both of them had talked to

each other a number of times, on 16/17.11.2025.

11. Admittedly, the applicant has not been

intercepted/nabbed at the spot, alongwith the

contraband. On the spot, accused Tula Ram, who

was on the wheel in car No. HP-01N-0502 alongwith

accused Ram Chander, who was also travelling with

him, was nabbed. Recovery was effected from the

search of the car, driven by accused Tula Ram.

During search of the vehicle, contraband, weighing

1.584 kg, was found.

12. As per the revelations, allegedly made by

accused Ram Chander and Tula Ram, during

11 2026:HHC:9414

investigation, the said contraband was purchased

from Suresh Chand, for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- out of

which, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was paid.

13. Admittedly, police has not arrested the

applicant under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. As

such, the grounds upon which, the bail application

has been opposed, is liable to be considered by this

Court.

14. Whatever disclosed by the co-accused of

applicant, was revealed by them, when, they were in

police custody. As such, the same cannot be used

against the applicant. Hence, on the basis of alleged

revelation/disclosure by co-accused, nothing can be

attributed against the applicant. In view of the law

laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Tofan Singh

versus State of Tamil Nadu’, reported in (2021) 4

Supreme Court Cases 1, the said

revelation/disclosure cannot be taken into account,

in order to convict the accused, under the provisions

12 2026:HHC:9414

of NDPS Act. Relevant paragraph 158.1 of the

judgment is reproduced as under:

“158.1 That the officers who are invested with powers under

Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers’ within the

meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which

any confessional statement made to them would be barred

under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and

cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused

under the NDPS Act.”

15. So far as the bank transactions are

concerned, on the basis of alleged two transactions,

which were allegedly made on 17.11.2025, no

inference can be drawn, at this stage, that the

charas was allegedly purchased by accused Ram

Chander from the applicant for a sum of Rs.

90,000/-.

16. In this case, learned counsel for the applicant

has placed reliance upon the statement of the

account of applicant Suresh Chand, demonstrating

that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was credited in the

account of the applicant, however, in the status

report, filed on 25.3.2026, nothing has been

mentioned in this regard.

13 2026:HHC:9414

17. At the cost of repetition, Section 27-A of the

NDPS Act, has not been added, in the present case.

As such, merely on account of the bank

transactions, involvement of the applicant, at this

stage, cannot be presumed to have been made.

18. So far as tower location and CDRs are

concerned, in the absence of call recording, from the

said fact, no criminal liability can be fastened upon

the applicant, at this stage. Applicant is resident of

Kupvi, District Shimla, whereas, Ram Chander and

Tula Ram are resident of Bindala, Tehsil Shillai,

District Sirmour, H.P., which are adjoining areas. As

such, merely, on the basis of CDRs, Police is not able

to connect applicant Chote Khan with the crime in

question, at this stage.

19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB)

Bengaluru versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta &

Anr., reported in 2022 (2) SCALE 14 has held that

evidentiary value of the CDRs is to be determined,

14 2026:HHC:9414

during trial. Relevant portion of the judgment is

reproduced as under:

“10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu , that a confessional statement recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial

of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid

decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis

of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or

the co-accused 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 9 of 12 2022 Live Law

(SC) 63 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569

OF 2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the

basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on

bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations

of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is

an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the

aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the

orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th

January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020

passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No.

1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-

74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The

impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave

Petitions filed by the petitioner-NIB seeking cancellation of bail

granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as

meritless.”

(self emphasis supplied)

20. The CDRs can only provide information like

Caller ID duration and Cell Tower Details, however,

they do not capture the substance of the

conversation itself. These are the call record details,

which are the metadata (data about data) about the

15 2026:HHC:9414

call and the same is totally different from call

recording, which offers direct evidence of the

communication, including specific words spoken and

context of the conversation, which can be crucial, for

deciding the matter.

21. From the discussions made above, this Court

is of the view that on the basis of stand, as taken by

the Police, in this case, as discussed above, first

condition of Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, is in

favour of the applicant, i.e. he is not guilty of such

offence, whereas, it can also be held that while on

bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. Even for

second condition, stringent conditions can be

imposed.

22. Considering all these facts, this Court is of

the view that the bail application is liable to be

allowed and is accordingly allowed.

23. 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

16 2026:HHC:9414

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.

24. 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

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.

25. 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.

17 2026:HHC:9414

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. In case, the applicant is not released within a

period of seven days from the date of grant of bail,

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.

18 2026:HHC:9414

29. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.

(Virender Singh)

Judge

31.3.2026

Kalpana