Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ankit Choudhary - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MPM No. 2656 of 2025
Decided On : 26-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General

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 conditions for bail grant.

Headnote:(A) NDotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, 29 and 37 - Bail application in case involving recovery of commercial quantity of charas from vehicle of co-accused - Petitioner implicated on basis of co-accused's disclosure statement to police and financial transactions from his account - Disclosure statement inadmissible under Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as confession to police officer; cannot connect petitioner to crime - Financial transactions alone insufficient to establish nexus or prima facie involvement - No criminal antecedents; petitioner satisfies twin conditions under Section 37 - Rigours of Section 37 not attracted - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Paras 2, 3, 11-17, 20)

(B) Bail - Principles - Normal rule is bail, not jail, except where circumstances suggest fleeing justice, tampering with witnesses or repeating offences - Courts to consider nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, risk of absconding or influencing witnesses - No detailed examination of merits at bail stage, but prima facie reasons required. (Paras 8-10)

(C) CrPC/BNSS - Section 162/181 - Statements during investigation inadmissible except for contradictions - Confessions to police hit by Section 25 Evidence Act/Section 23 BSA. (Paras 11-13)

Facts of the case:
Police received secret information about vehicle parked with charas, associated independent witnesses, searched vehicle and recovered 2.526 kg charas from driver who was arrested. Driver disclosed contraband for delivery to petitioner's father with payments made through petitioner's account on multiple dates. Petitioner, son of alleged purchaser, arrested. Investigation ongoing; sample confirmed as charas.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner ordered released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including not influencing witnesses, attending trial, not leaving address without intimation, surrendering passport and providing mobile/social media details.

Issues: Whether confessional disclosure by co-accused and financial transactions constitute sufficient material for prima facie case under NDPS Act; whether petitioner satisfies twin conditions of Section 37 amidst commercial quantity recovery; validity of arrest grounds communication.

Ratio Decidendi: Inadmissible co-accused confessions to police and mere financial transactions inadequate to link petitioner to offence or thwart Section 37 bail conditions; no material indicating likelihood of re-offending or tampering.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. charas recovery linked to petitioner via co-accused statement, payments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims false implication; prosecution invokes ndps section 37. (Para 5 , 6)
3. bail principles: nature of offence, evidence, antecedents considered. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. co-accused police confessions inadmissible under bsa section 23. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. prior hp cases grant bail on weak confessional evidence. (Para 14 , 15)
6. financial transactions insufficient to prove ndps involvement. (Para 16 , 17)
7. arrest grounds communication applies prospectively per supreme court. (Para 18 , 19)
8. petitioner satisfies ndps section 37 twin conditions. (Para 20)
9. bail granted with conditions; limited to bail disposal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 129 of 2025, dated 06.10.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (for short ‘NDPS’) at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police received secret information on 06.10.2025 that one Bharam Singh deals in sale of Charge. He had parked his car at the 32-mile Rain Shelter on NH-154, and a huge quantity of charas could be recovered from the search of the car. The police recovered 2.526 kgs of Charas. The police arrested Bharam Singh, who revealed during interrogation that the contraband was to be delivered to Ramesh, the petitioner’s father. The police arrested Ramesh and checked his account. The police found that the payment was made through the petitioner’s account. The petitioner has no nexus with the contraband, and he was wrongly implicated. He has no criminal antecedents. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 06.10.2025. They received secret information at about 11:50 p.m. that Bharam Singh had parked his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-76-1375 near Rain Shelter 32 miles. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jawali, District Kanra, H.P. The Police associated independent witnesses, Pawan Kumar and Harbans Lal and reached the spot where the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 76-1375 was parked. The driver was found present in the vehicle, who identified himself as Bharam Singh. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 2.526 kilograms of Charas. The police arrested Bharam Singh and seized the charas. Dharam Singh revealed during interrogation that Ramesh Chand had paid for the charas through an online account. The police checked the mobile phone of Dharam Singh and found that the payment was made by the petitioner. He had paid Rs.30,000/-on 21st April, Rs.10,000/- on 30th April, Rs.50,000/- on 22nd May and Rs.50,000/- on 9th September. Bharam Singh revealed that the petitioner is the son of Ramesh Chand, the purchaser of the charas. The police arrested Ramesh Chand and the petitioner. The charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per the result, it was confirmed to be an extract of Cannabis and a sample of charas. The investigation is continuing, and the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material against the petitioner except the statement made by the accused and the financial transaction, which are insufficient to connect him to the commission of the crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr