IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CrMP(M) No.1194 of 2026 Decided on: 17.07.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Suhel Khan ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ………..Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. HC Inderjeet, No.37, PS Majra, District Sirmaur, present in person along with record. _______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner, who is behind bars since 13.05.2026, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.68 of 2026, dated 18.04.2026, under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Respondent/State has filed status report and HC Inderjeet, No.37, PS Majra, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record peruse and returned. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

3. Close scrutiny of record made available to this Court reveals that on 18.04.2026 at 05:15 PM, Police, after having received secret information that person namely Tapender Singh, who has a grocery shop at Kolar, indulges in illegal sale of prohibited drugs and in case his shop is raided, huge quantity of contraband can be recovered, conducted search of his shop and allegedly recovered 696 capsules of PROXIOHM-SPAS containing Tramadol. Besides above, Police also recovered ₹40,000/- in cash. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and arrested co-accused Tapender Singh. Allegedly afore Tapender Singh during investigation disclosed to the Police that contraband has been supplied to him by present bail petitioner, and in lieu thereof, sum of ₹6000/- was also sent on his google pay. In the afore background, petitioner herein also came to be roped in the FIR and since 13.05.2026, he is behind bars. 4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3

5. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to completion of investigation, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is drug peddling and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such activities. He states that record of CDRs as well as financial transaction adduced on record inter se bail petitioner and co-accused Tapender Singh clearly establishes factum with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the case at hand and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that commercial quantity of contraband never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Tapender Singh, who is behind bars. No doubt, in the case at hand, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are attracted for the reason that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, but question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is whether petitioner 4

herein can be roped in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement, if any, made by the co-accused under Section 67 of the Act. 7. Since petitioner herein has been roped in the present FIR merely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, coupled with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner herein could not be arrested merely on the statement made by co-accused. Hon’ble Apex Court in afore case has categorically held that disclosure statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under Section 67 of the Act. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “155.Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 156.The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and

45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles 5 laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us. 157.On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal are correct in law. 158.We answer the reference by stating: (i) 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. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 242 of 2022 (arising out of diary No. 22702 of 2020) decided on 10.1.2022, again reiterated that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in this case upheld the order/judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka granting bail to the accused arrested by the petitioner NCB on the basis of confessional/voluntary statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of 6 the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 10. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 7 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.

227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the Court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 13. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in 8

support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 14. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 15. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and 9

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 17. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 18. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 17, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CrMP(M) No.1194 of 2026 Decided on: 17.07.2026 _______________________________________________________________ Suhel Khan ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ………..Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. HC Inderjeet, No.37, PS Majra, District Sirmaur, present in person along with record. _______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner, who is behind bars since 13.05.2026, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.68 of 2026, dated 18.04.2026, under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Respondent/State has filed status report and HC Inderjeet, No.37, PS Majra, District Sirmaur, has come present along with record. Record peruse and returned. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

3. Close scrutiny of record made available to this Court reveals that on 18.04.2026 at 05:15 PM, Police, after having received secret information that person namely Tapender Singh, who has a grocery shop at Kolar, indulges in illegal sale of prohibited drugs and in case his shop is raided, huge quantity of contraband can be recovered, conducted search of his shop and allegedly recovered 696 capsules of PROXIOHM-SPAS containing Tramadol. Besides above, Police also recovered ₹40,000/- in cash. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and arrested co-accused Tapender Singh. Allegedly afore Tapender Singh during investigation disclosed to the Police that contraband has been supplied to him by present bail petitioner, and in lieu thereof, sum of ₹6000/- was also sent on his google pay. In the afore background, petitioner herein also came to be roped in the FIR and since 13.05.2026, he is behind bars. 4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3

5. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to completion of investigation, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is drug peddling and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such activities. He states that record of CDRs as well as financial transaction adduced on record inter se bail petitioner and co-accused Tapender Singh clearly establishes factum with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the case at hand and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that commercial quantity of contraband never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Tapender Singh, who is behind bars. No doubt, in the case at hand, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are attracted for the reason that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, but question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is whether petitioner 4

herein can be roped in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement, if any, made by the co-accused under Section 67 of the Act. 7. Since petitioner herein has been roped in the present FIR merely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, coupled with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner herein could not be arrested merely on the statement made by co-accused. Hon’ble Apex Court in afore case has categorically held that disclosure statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under Section 67 of the Act. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “155.Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 156.The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and

45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles 5 laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us. 157.On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal are correct in law. 158.We answer the reference by stating: (i) 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. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 242 of 2022 (arising out of diary No. 22702 of 2020) decided on 10.1.2022, again reiterated that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in this case upheld the order/judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka granting bail to the accused arrested by the petitioner NCB on the basis of confessional/voluntary statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of 6 the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 10. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 7 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.

227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the Court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 13. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in 8

support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 14. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 15. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and 9

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 17. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 18. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 17, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)