IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Arnav Saviraj Chauhan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 293 of 2026
Decided On : 30-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the bail petition and the accusations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition to the bail petition by the police. (Para 3) |
| 3. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 4) |
| 4. defence arguments regarding innocence and evidence inadmissibility. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. legal standards and parameters for granting bail. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. judicial consideration of possession and evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. legislative standards for bail related to commercial quantities. (Para 15) |
| 8. limits on the use of confessions made by co-accused. (Para 16) |
| 9. conclusion of the court regarding the bail petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 204 of 2025 , dated 22.09. , registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a law student aged 20 years. He is a permanent resident of Shimla, having roots in the society. The petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. No. 204 of 2025 and was unable to appear in his examination because of his incarceration. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused because of his presence in the vehicle from which 1 kg 174 grams of charas was recovered. Co-accused Kashin Kashyap, Ayansh and Srivastav were the financiers of the purchase. Kashin Kashyap transferred Rs. 50,000/- through Google Pay, and Ayansh transferred Rs. 14,200/-through UPI to Rewat Ram, who was subsequently arrested on 04.11. . The police have also filed the charge sheet. The petitioner has remained in prison for more than five months. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Money transactions do not connect the petitioner to any of the co-accused. The mobile phone of Kashin Kashyap was also found in the laptop bag, which connects him to the commission of the crime. As per the prosecution’s case, the petitioner had not visited Kullu, H.P. He was not seen in CCTV footage and had not purchased the charas. He was the only occupant of the vehicle and was not connected to the charas. The co-accused Kashin Kashyap has been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police 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. UP-16AX-2143. The driver and occupants of the vehicle got frightened after seeing the police. The police associated Kuldeep Kumar and Mukesh Kumar as independent witnesses. The police inquired about the names of the occupants of the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Devayas Patel, the person sitting beside him identified himself as Nakul Mittal, and the persons sitting in the rear seat identified themselves as Arnav Chauhan (present petitioner), 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, who had also accompanied the accused on his motorcycle. They identified the room where they had stayed in Kullu. The petitioner had gone to Kullu from Solan to purchase Charas on 21.09. , but had stayed in a hotel at 9 miles Pandoh, with his friends Nakul Mittal, Rohit Kumar and Aditya Kumar. Divyansh Patel, Nakul Mittal, petitioner, Saksham Bharti and Rohit Kumar revealed during the investigation that they handed over Rs. 5000/- each to Kashin
Avatar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
Gurprabh Singh @ Prince vs State of Punjab
Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan and another vs. State of Gujrat
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
Madan Lal versus State of H.P.
The presumption of conscious possession applies in drug cases, necessitating the petitioner to disprove involvement in the crime to grant bail under the NDPS Act.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
Passenger in private vehicle with commercial quantity contraband prima facie in conscious possession if linked to co-accused via call records; must rebut presumption and satisfy Section 37 twin condi....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail requires court satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37: reasonable grounds accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; co-accused confessional statem....
Vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of commercial quantity contraband absent explanation; bail refused as twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied: no reasonable grounds for b....
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as accused failed twin conditions of Section 37: no reasonable grounds to believe not guilty given prima facie conscious possession via concealment attemp....
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Co-accused disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.