Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Suresh Chand - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 95 of 2026
Decided On : 31-3-2026

Advocates Appeared:
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.

The court ruled that involvement of an accused must be substantiated by adequate evidence, and statements by co-accused cannot solely establish guilt under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 29-61-85 - Bail application for the applicant denied on grounds of alleged involvement in drug trafficking based on co-accused's statements, bank records, and mobile tower data indicating communication. (Paras 1-22)

(B) Bail Considerations - Under Section 37(b)(ii) of NDPS Act, the court emphasized that guilt is undetermined and conditions may apply for bail. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an alleged drug dealer, was arrested following police investigations into narcotics case; however, he claims innocence, asserting no direct recovery was made from him. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
Bail granted, conditions imposed including attendance in court, no tampering with evidence, and restrictions on leaving India. (Paras 22-24)

Issues: Main inquiry focused on whether the applicant's involvement could be established through inadequate evidence against him. (Paras 10-18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court referenced precedents stating that statements by co-accused cannot form the sole basis for conviction, and noted insufficient evidence to connect the applicant to drug transactions at this stage. (Paras 14-19)

Result: Bail application allowed, with specific conditions outlined for the applicant's release.

Table of Content
1. applicant seeks bail alleging false implications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. applicant’s prior bail application was dismissed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments against applicant's involvement highlighted. (Para 9)
4. discussion on evidential issues from co-accused statements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. limitations of evidence based on bank transactions and cdrs. (Para 15 , 16 , 18)
6. supreme court precedents cited regarding confessions. (Para 19 , 20)
7. court's view on bail grant conditions analyzed. (Para 21 , 22)
8. conditions of bail and court’s limitations on future implications. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. administrative orders and guidelines for jail. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

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 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-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 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 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 oth