IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail, in FIR No.204 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20,25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) at Police Station Sundernagar District Mandi, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.09.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No.UP16AX-2143. They searched the vehicle in the presence of Kuldeep Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Constable Satish Kumar. The driver identified himself as Divyansh Patel. The person sitting beside him identified himself Nakul Mittal and the persons sitting on the rear seat identified themselves as Arnav Chauhan, Saksham Bharti and Rohit Kumar. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a backpack containing 1.174 kilograms of charas. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicles and seized the charas. The occupants named the petitioner as the person who had supplied the charas. The allegations are false. The petitioner was added after he was named by the co-accused. The petitioner was not found in possession of any charas. The investigation is complete. No recovery is to be made. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party had set up a nakka at Pungh four-lane and were checking the vehicles on 22.09.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. UP16AX-2143. The driver and occupants of the vehicle got frightened after seeing the police. The police associated Kuldeep Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Constable Satish Kumar as witnesses. The police inquired the names of the occupants of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP16AX-2143. The driver identified himself as Devyansh Patel, the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Nakul Mittal and the persons sitting on the rear seat identified themselves as Arnav Chauhan, Saksham Bharti and Rohit Kumar. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a carry bag containing 1.174 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The charas was sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per the report of analysis, it was confirmed to be a sample of charas. The occupants revealed during interrogation that they had handed over Rs.5000/- each to Kashin Kashyap (present petitioner). The petitioner had also accompanied the Co-accused on his motorcycle. They identified the room where they had stayed at Kullu. The bank details of the petitioner showed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was transferred from the account of the petitioner’s mother. CCTV footage was also checked and petitioner was found with other occupants of the vehicle. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner made a disclosure statement that he could show the place where he had purchased the charas. He led the police to a bridge constructed on Naulgari Nala at Lag valley. The bank account detail of Rewat Ram also showed the receipt of Rs.50,000/-. The police arrested Rewat Ram, who confirmed that he had sold the charas at a place mentioned by the petitioner. No other case has been registered against the petitioner. The mobile phone of the petitioner was found in the vehicle from which the recovery of charas was made. The charas was meant for the sale to students. The investigation is complete and challan is to be prepared. Hence the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5.Mr. Sunil Kumar Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement mad