IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Pardeep Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.257 of 2026
Decided on : 16.03.2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery of excess codeine syrup from co-accused room. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. occupancy implies liability under section 29 ndps. (Para 4) |
| 3. no conscious possession; trial to determine manufacturing origin. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. section 67 ndps confessions inadmissible per tofan singh. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. bail under section 37 if falsely implicated; innocence presumed. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. bail rule, jail exception; consider tampering risk. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. regular bail granted with conditions and caveats. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Bail petitioner, namely Pardeep Kumar, who is behind the bars since 11.12.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.301 dated 05.12.2025, under Sections 22 and 29 of ND & PS Act, registered at PS Baddi, District Solan, HP.
2. In terms of order dated 27.02.2026, respondent/State filed status report and SI Vipan Kumar, Additional SHO PS Baddi, District Solan, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of status report/ record reveals that on 05.12.2025, police, after having received secret information to the effect that person namely Prajwal Sharma, R/o Village Malookmajra, Morphin Road, near Bharat Petrol Pump, Baddi, indulges in illegal trade of narcotics, constituted a raiding party and allegedly recovered 360 bottles of Syrup namely Zing Cirex-T containing Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup in the presence of independent witnesses. Out of aforesaid 360 bottles, 14 bottles were having label of CSD Life sciences, whereas the remaining bottles were without any label. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid bottles of cough syrup containing narcotic substance i.e. codeine phosphate, police, after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR detailed hereinabove against Prajwal Sharma, who allegedly during investigation disclosed that accommodation in which he along with Pardeep i.e. bail petitioner, resides, is in the name of CSD Life Sciences. He also disclosed to the Police that bottles recovered from him were stacked by the bail petitioner i.e. Pardeep on the askance of owner of CSD Life Sciences namely Vishal. On the basis of aforesaid statement given by the Prajwal Sharma, Police arrested bail petitioner, whereas owners of CSD Life Sciences namely Vishal and Sachin along with Production Manager Alok Dhar Dwivedi, approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, by way of bail petition filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of anticipatory bail. Subsequently, afore persons approached this Court by way of Cr.MP(M) Nos.137, 182 and 222 of 2026 for grant of anticipatory bail and this Court vide order dated 06.03.2026, enlarged them on bail.
4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating officer, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but he has not disclosed information with regard to production of 360 bottles, which were otherwise found to be manufactured in excess, as per record, and were recovered from the room of bail petitioner and Prajwal Sharma. Mr. Kahol states that as per record of CSD Life Sciences, 360 bottles were not manufactured there, rather all the drugs manufactured in CSD Life Sciences were sent to Kanpur. He states that Investigation Agency has yet to find out from where 360 bottles in excess to particular batch were prepared and why they were lying in the room hired by the CSD Life Sciences. He states that though 360 bottles containing narcotic substance were not recovered from the conscious possession of the bail-petitioner, but he, being one of the occupant of the room, is liable to be prosecuted under Section 29 of ND & PS Act. He states that as per forensic report, all the bottles recovered from the room of em
Confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS inadmissible against accused; no conscious possession means no Section 22 case; bail grantable in commercial quantity despite Section 37 if false implica....
Confessional statements under NDPS Section 67 inadmissible against non-possessors; no conscious possession recovery justifies bail grant despite commercial quantity, overcoming Section 37 rigours.
Bail should not be denied solely based on co-accused statements without sufficient evidence; the presumption of innocence persists until proven guilty, emphasizing that the general rule favors bail.
(1) Bail – Freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt is yet to be proved – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.(2) There is no comp....
The court granted bail considering the petitioner's clean antecedents and prolonged incarceration, despite the serious charges under the NDPS Act.
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of substantial custody and the admissibility and veracity of disclosure statements in bail applications under the NDPS Act.
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.