IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1892 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.09.2025 Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. 270 of 2024, dated 12.12.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, HP.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that the police party intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168 and recovered 4.36 kilograms of charas from the rear door of the vehicle. The driver and occupants of the vehicle ran away from the spot. They identified themselves as Raj Kumar and Sham Lal, who were arrested. Raj Kumar disclosed that the charas was supplied by the petitioner and was to be delivered to Bunty Kumar. The police arrested the petitioner on 08.05.2025. The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence, and there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Therefore, 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 12.12.2024 when they received the information that Charas was being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to a supervisory officer. The police signalled the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-53B-9168 to stop;

however, the driver sped away with the vehicle towards Talwara. The vehicle was stopped at a lonely place, and the occupants of the vehicle ran away from the spot. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 4.36 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested Raj Kumar, who revealed on inquiry that he was told by Shyam Lal to take the vehicle towards Jawali. Two persons signalled him to stop the vehicle, but he sped away in the vehicle at the instance of Shyam Lal. Subsequently, he and Shyam Lal ran away after stopping the vehicle at a lonely place. Shyam Lal was to deliver the charas to Bunty Kumar at the instance of the petitoiner. The petitioner had called the co-accused Sham Lal and Raj Kumar. The petitioner had made a video call to the co-accused Sham Lal and Bunty. Rajesh Kumar revealed during the inquiry that the petitioner had shown the photograph of the charas during the video call. The screenshot of the WhatsApp chat was taken in possession. The data from Bunty's mobile has been retrieved, which shows that Bunty and the petitioner had talked to each other. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, 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 to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. The police have filed the charge sheet. Photograph, stated to have been sent by the petitioner to the co-accused Bunty, was not annexed to the charge-sheet. The police are relying upon the statement of the co-accused and the call detail record to connect the petitione