Sandeep Shah @ Sonu alias Arun Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 27A and 29 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 111 - Bail - Parameters for grant of bail considered in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 - Normal rule is bail not jail (State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308) - Statement of co-accused during investigation is inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 of Evidence Act (Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547; Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, (2018) 8 SCC 271; Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1) - Call detail records and financial transactions alone insufficient to connect accused to crime (Dinesh Kumar @ Billa v. State of H.P., 2020 Cri LJ 4564; Saina Devi v. State of H.P., 2022 Law Suit (HP) 211; Amal E v. State of Kerala, 2023:KER:39393) - Organised crime under Section 111 BNS requires more than one charge sheet filed within preceding ten years and court cognizance; analogous provisions interpreted in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva, (2015) 14 SCC 272 and State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727 - Without legally admissible prima facie evidence, Section 111 cannot be invoked (Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5260; Pesala Sivashankar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5422; Suraj Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/PH/4288/2024). (Paras 8-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 107 of 2024 registered under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the police recovered 6.38 grams of heroin from co-accused, who disclosed that the petitioner supplied the narcotics and directed them via WhatsApp. The police found call detail records, financial transactions, and claimed the petitioner was the kingpin of a drug syndicate with multiple FIRs against him. The petitioner had been in custody for 1½ years, and the trial had not commenced.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the prosecution relied on inadmissible evidence: statements of co-accused (hit by Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 Evidence Act), call detail records, and financial transactions, which are insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Regarding Section 111 BNS, the court found no legally admissible evidence showing more than one charge sheet filed in the preceding ten years, as required for 'continuing unlawful activity'. Hence, the offence under Section 111 was not attracted. Applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and considering the petitioner's long custody and low chance of early trial, bail was granted.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the nature of accusations, the admissibility of evidence, and the applicability of Section 111 BNS.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence; call detail records and financial transactions without other material cannot justify denial of bail. For Section 111 BNS, the prosecution must show at least two charge sheets within ten years and court cognizance; absence of such renders the provision inapplicable. Bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to refuse, such as risk of flight or witness tampering, which were not established.

Result: Petition allowed. Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including non-intimidation of witnesses, regular attendance, and surrender of passport.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Bail petition under NDPS Act and BNS for alleged drug trafficking based on statements of co-accused and financial transactions. (Para 1 , 3 )

2. Petitioner argued innocence and prolonged custody; State argued he is kingpin of drug syndicate with criminal antecedents. (Para 5 , 6 )

3. Petitioner released on bail with conditions including non-intimidation, attendance, surrender of passport. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

4. Are statements of co-accused admissible as substantive evidence against another accused in bail proceedings?

No. Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used to deny bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )

5. Can call detail records and financial transactions alone justify denial of bail in NDPS cases?

No. Without legally admissible evidence, such records are insufficient to connect an accused to the crime or deny bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )

6. What are the essential requirements for invoking the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of BNS?

More than one charge sheet in preceding ten years, continuing unlawful activity, and legally admissible evidence are required; mere allegations are insufficient. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 107 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the police received secret information during patrolling on 13.08.2024 at about 12.05 a.m. that two persons staying in Hotel Himachal had a huge quantity of narcotics in their possession. The police completed the formalities and went to room No. 101, where they found Suraj and Rohit Panday. The police recovered one packet containing 6.38 grams of heroin, seized it and arrested Suraj and Rohit Panday. They disclosed during the interrogation that Sandeep Shah (the present petitioner) used to send them the location and direct them to keep the heroin in those locations. They would drop the heroin in those locations and send the location to Sandeep Shah through WhatsApp. The police checked the call detail record and bank account statement and found that the accused were in touch with Sandeep Shah and had financial transactions with him. These allegations are false. The police have completed the investigation and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Sixty-seven other co-accused have been released on bail, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter was listed for filing the reply to the application under Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court has not framed the charges due to the absence of some of the co-accused. The petitioner has remained in custody for one and a half years, and the trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. 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 received secret information on 14^th August 2024 at about 12:05 am that two persons staying in room number 101 of the hotel Himachal had a huge quantity of narcotics. The Police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the supervisory officer. The Police went to room number 101 with independent witnesses. Suraj and Rohit Pandey were found in the room. The police searched the room and recovered one polythene packet containing 6.380 grams of heroin and a digital weighing machine. The Police seized the heroin and the digital weighing machine. The police arrested the occupants of the room. Suraj and Rohit Pandey disclosed during the investigation that Sandeep Shah (present petitioner) had supplied the heroin to them. Sandeep Shah used to send the locations and direct them to keep the heroin in those locations. They would drop the heroin and send the locations to the petitioner via WhatsApp. The police checked the call detail records and the bank account statements. The police found that Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore and Aastik Chauhan were in contact with Rohit Pandey and Suraj. They had transferred a huge amount to Sandeep Shah’s bank account. Police arrested Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore, Aastik Chauhan, Sandeep Shah (present petitioner) and Neeraj Kashyap. The police found during the investigation that Sandeep Shah was dealing in narcotics. FIR number 108/2022 and FIR number 190/21 were registered against him. Sandeep Shah (present petitioner) disclosed during the interrogation that the police officials were also involved in the commission of the offence. He named Jugal Kishore, Sandy, Rajat and Rohit. The evidence of forward and backward linkage was found from the call detail record and the mobile phones of Suraj and Rohit Panday. The virtual number of the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(HP) 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sandeep Shah @ Sonu alias Arun Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1236 of 2026
Decided On : 30-07-2026

Under Section 111 BNS, organised crime requires more than one charge sheet filed in preceding ten years and court cognizance; without such, bail cannot be denied solely on co-accused statements or CDR.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Are statements of co-accused admissible as substantive evidence against another accused in bail proceedings?

5. Can call detail records and financial transactions alone justify denial of bail in NDPS cases?

6. What are the essential requirements for invoking the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of BNS?

2026 Supreme(HP) 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARAKESH KAINTHLA, J.Sandeep Shah @ Sonu alias Arun Kumar - PetitionerVersusState of Himachal Pradesh - RespondentCr. MP(M) No. 1236 of 2026Decided On : 30-07-2026

Under Section 111 BNS, organised crime requires more than one charge sheet filed in preceding ten years and court cognizance; without such, bail cannot be denied solely on co-accused statements or CDR.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Are statements of co-accused admissible as substantive evidence against another accused in bail proceedings?

5. Can call detail records and financial transactions alone justify denial of bail in NDPS cases?

6. What are the essential requirements for invoking the offence of organised crime under Section 111 of BNS?

Cases Referred (12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sandeep Shah @ Sonu alias Arun Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1236 of 2026
Decided On : 30-07-2026