Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Shubhkaran - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 405 of 2026
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

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.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 and 29; Motor Vehicles Act - Section 181 - Regular bail application - Petitioner accused of possession of charas seized from a vehicle during police patrol - Involvement based on co-accused statements, deemed inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and Section 25 of Evidence Act - Past criminal cases pending against petitioner, though no new evidence justifies continued detention - Parameters for granting bail highlighted per numerous Supreme Court decisions including Pinki v. State of U.P. - Insufficient material to connect petitioner to crime, bail granted with conditions. (Paras 2-18)

(B) Bail - Standards for granting bail in serious offences - Factors include nature of charge, evidence, risk of absconding, and prior criminal record. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, implicated in a narcotics case involving transportation of charas, contested the validity of evidence against him primarily based on co-accused statements viewed as inadmissible. His prior criminal records and violation of bail conditions did not negate the current petition for bail.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed as insufficient evidence connects the petitioner to the crime.

Result: The petitioner is granted bail on specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. petition for bail based on police findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on case documentation and arguments. (Para 4 , 7 , 11 , 14)
3. arguments regarding innocence and prosecution's burden. (Para 5 , 6)
4. legal principles surrounding bail application and evidence standards. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16)
5. conclusion granting bail with stipulated conditions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 206 of 2025 , dated 12.10. , registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that the police had stopped a car bearing registration No.TO25HP1132L in a nakka on 12.10. 2025 . The driver identified himself as Anu Kumar, the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Suresh Kumar, and the person sitting in the rear seat identified himself as Ram Lal. The police recovered 6.044 kilograms of charas during the search of the vehicle. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the charas. The accused Suresh Kumar disclosed that the petitioner used to ask him to collect the consignment from an unknown person at Kullu and deliver it to Gurpeet. The police arrested the petitioner based on the statement. The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence. F.I.R. No. 13 of 2023, dated 16.01.2023, and F.I.R. No. 64 of 2024, dated 12.03.2024, were registered against the petitioner, which are pending before the Court. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; 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 were on patrolling duty on 11.10. 2025 . They received secret information at 8:15 p.m. that a vehicle bearing a temporary registration No. TO25HP1132L was transporting a huge quantity of charas. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Nurpur. The police joined Anish Kumar and Rahul Patel and waited for the car. The car reached the spot at 8:50 p.m. The police signalled the driver to stop the car. The driver identified himself as Anu Kumar. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Suresh Kumar, and the person sitting in the rear seat identified himself as Ram Lal. The police searched the vehicle after completing the formalities and recovered a carry bag containing 6.044 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. Suresh Kumar disclosed that he was transporting the charas at the instance of Shubhkaran (present petitioner). The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the charas. The charas was to be delivered to Gurpreet. The police arrested Shubhkaran and Vijay Kumar. F.I. R. No. 13 of 2023, dated 16.01.2023, and F.I.R. No. 64 of 2024, dated 12.03.2024, were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was released on bail, but he violated the terms and conditions of the bail order. The petitioner had abetted the possession of a commercial quantity of charas. Bhag Singh is yet to be arrested. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. The police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custod