IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 3031 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.01.2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026.

Sanjay 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. Servedman Rathore, 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. No. 212 of 2025, dated 17.09.2025, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

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

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner has no concern with the commission of the offences. The investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Paonta Sahib and has roots in the society. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 17.09.2025. They received a secret information at 2:10 PM that Dyal Singh was selling intoxicating capsules. A huge quantity of capsules could be recovered by his search. The information was credible and the delay in procuring the warrants would have resulted in the destruction of the case property. Hence, the information was reduced into writing and was sent to the office of Sub-Divisional Police Official (SDPO). The police associated Up-Pradhan, Dilbaag Singh and went to the spot, where Dayal Singh was present. The police searched the bag being carried by Dayal Singh and recovered 360 capsules weighing 202 grams during the search. The police seized the capsules and arrested Dayal Singh. He revealed during the interrogation that Shashi Kant had handed over a bag to him with the direction to hand it over to another person. The police arrested Shashi Kant, who revealed that the bag was to be delivered to Sanjay Kumar (the present petitioner). WhatsApp chat was checked and it was found that Shashi Kant was chatting with Dayal Singh and Sanjay Kumar (the present petitioner). The police arrested the petitioner. FIR Nos. 49 of 2016, 205 of 2018 and 50 of 2020 have been registered against the petitioner which are pending adjudication. The chargesheet has been filed and is pending before the learned Special Judge, Paonta Sahib for consideration of charge and is listed on 14.01.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. No other evidence exists against the petitioner to connect him to the commission of crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was in contact with Shashi Kant and the police have also collected WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and the co- accused which shows the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page

380: -

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. H