Insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime justifies granting bail, emphasizing the need for clear communication of arrest grounds.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 172 of 2024, dated 20.10.2024, registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested along with two other persons. The petitioner is a taxi driver, and he was hired by the co-accused to take them to Chandigarh. The Investigating Officer did not provide the grounds for arrest to the petitioner. The petitioner has no past criminal history, and he has been in custody since 20.10.2024. 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 was on Nakabandi duty on 20.10.2024. A taxi bearing registration No. HP-01K-4679 came from Mandi at 8.10 PM. The police signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. The driver stopped the vehicle. The police started checking the documents. The person sitting beside the driver tried to conceal a bag. The police asked him the reason for doing so, but he could not give a satisfactory answer. The driver identified himself as Amarnath, the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Vidya Nath, and the person sitting on the rear seat identified himself as Duni Chand. The police checked the bag kept by Vidya Nath and found 1.511 kgs. of charas in it. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants. The charas was sent to FSL and was confirmed to be the extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police checked the call detail record and the bank statements, but could not find the involvement of any other person. All the people were known to each other. Vidya Nath and Amar Nath are remotely related to each other. The police filed the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge on 22.1.2025. The matter was listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 16.6.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Varun Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the petitioner is a taxi driver. His taxi was hired by the co-accused. As per the prosecution, the bag was kept by the co-accused, who had tried to conceal it. The petitioner did not know anything about the transportation of the charas. Grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner, and his arrest is illegal; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and he be released on bail. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission:-

(i) Madhu Limaye and others (1969) 1 SCC 292;

(ii) Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117;

(iii) Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. UOI and others (1981) 2 SCC 427;

(iv) Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 367;

(v) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254;

(vi) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another 2025 INSC 162;

(vii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17132 of 2024, decided on 22.4.2025;

(viii) Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2025 INSC 768;

(ix) Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 7 SCC 599;

(x) State of Karnataka Vs. Hemanth Datta @ Hemantha @ Baby and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9295 of 2025, decided on 26.6.2025;

(xi) Sri Shankar Dongarisabeb Bhosale Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 1221 of 2017, decided on 9.1.2025;

(xii) Minnas Ali Vs. State of Aassm 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2597;

(xiii) Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State o