IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2383 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of Decision: 23.01.2026.

Pradeep Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr r …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr K.S. Gill, Advocate.

gFor the Respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 41 of 2025, dated 17.02.2025, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

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

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police received secret information on 17.02.2025 that the petitioner, who was working as a Chowkidar in the Forest Corporation Sales Depot at Taruwala, was indulging in the sale of narcotics. The police reached the Forest Corporation Depot, searched the Almirah and recovered 1.614 kg of charas. The police arrested the petitioner. These allegations are false. There is no evidence against theu petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Distorict Shimla. He has deep roots in society, and there is noC chance of his absconding. The premises from which the recovery was effected were not allotted to the petitioner; rather, they were lying abandoned. The petitioner was working in the Sales Depot at Taruwala and was discharging his duties at the Htime of his arrest. The petitioner 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 were on a patrolling duty on 17.02.2025. They received secret information at 6:30 PM that petitioner Pradeep Kumar was selling charas, and in case of search of his room, a huge quantity of charas could be recovered. The information was credible, and any delay in procuring the search warrant would have led to the destruction of the case property. Hence, the information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Paonta Sahib. The police joined Suprabhat Thakur and went to the petitioner’s room, where he was present. The police searched the room and recovered a carry bagu containing 1.614 kg of charas. The police arrested the petoitioner and seized the charas. The charas was sent to theC State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) Junga, and as per the result of analysis, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The chargesheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner filed an application for his Hdischarge, which was dismissed on 11.06.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State.

5. Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The room from where the recovery was effected was not allotted to the petitioner, and this fact was asserted in a reply to the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The mere presence of the petitioner on the spot is not sufficient to connect him to the commission of a crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present peutition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.o

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the res pondents/State, submitted that the petitioner was residing in the room as per the statement of Suprabhat Thakur. The mere fact that the room was not allotted to him is not sufficient to prove that he was not in possession. The