Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Prahlad Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 443 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anjali Soni Verma, Shivani Tegta
For the Respondents: Ajit Sharma

Confessional statements of a co-accused to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and call records alone are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for invoking the restrictive bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 29 - Bail - Petitioner accused of abetting possession of commercial quantity of charas - Confessional statements of co-accused to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act - Call detail records without further corroborative material are insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused - Rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply where primary evidence is lacking. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 17)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Criminal antecedents - Mere presence of past criminal record does not justify continued custody in the absence of material connecting the accused to the present offence. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed for regular bail alleging innocence in connection with FIR 167 of 2025 involving the recovery of 1.852 kg of cannabis. The prosecution case was based on the disclosure statements of three co-accused apprehended at a rain shelter and call detail records linking the petitioner to the supply and distribution of the narcotic substance. The State opposed the bail, citing the commercial quantity involved and the petitioner's prior criminal record.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that disclosure statements of co-accused to police are inadmissible and that call detail records alone are insufficient to sustain a prima facie case for the purpose of denying bail under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. The bail was granted with conditions.

Issues: Whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged drug offence, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of substantive evidence other than inadmissible police confessions and digital call logs, the requirements of Section 37 are not satisfied, and the petitioner is entitled to bail particularly when detention serves no further purpose.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the arrest and the prosecution's reliance on co-accused statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments concerning the admissibility of evidence and applicability of section 37 ndps. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. general principles governing the judicial exercise of discretion in bail matters. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. exclusion of inadmissible confessions and inadequacy of cdr for prima facie case. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. final determination to grant bail under specific conditions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 167 of 2025, dated 29.12.2025, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2026 by the police based on inadmissible evidence for the commission of offences punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has no connection to the commission of the crime. The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family and is a permanent resident of District Kangra. 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 were on patrolling duty in their vehicle near Tauki on 28.12.2025 at about 9:30 PM. They saw three people carrying a bag and talking to each other inside the rain shelter. The police became suspicious and stopped the vehicle. The people inside the rain shelter tried to run away after seeing the police, but the police apprehended them. The police associated Mohan Singh and Karan and enquired about the names of the apprehended persons, who identified themselves as Sonu @ Nittu, Mukesh Kumar @ Rinku and Balwinder @ Billa. The police checked the carry bag and found 1.852 kg of cannabis in it. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the apprehended persons. The police interrogated the apprehended persons. Balwinder @ Billa revealed that he and Prahlad (the present petitioner) met each other in Sub Jail, Nurpur. He and the petitioner started selling the charas together. The petitioner had supplied the cannabis to him on 28.12.2025 and asked Sonu @ Nittu to contact Balwinder @ Billa for purchasing charas. Balwinder @ Billa was supplying charas to Sonu @ Nittu and Mukesh Kumar @ Rinku when they were apprehended by the police. The other accused also confirmed this version. The call detail record showed that all the people were in touch with each other. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in FIR Nos. 7 of 2008, 43 of 2008 and 50 of 2009. The chargesheet has been filed before the court, and the matter is pending before the Court. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard M/s Anjali Soni Verma and Shivani Tegta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Ms Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was apprehended based on suspicion. There is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner, and the prosecution is relying upon the statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible. The police have filed the chargesheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. She relied upon the judgments of this Court in Shubham Chaudhary and State of H.P. 2026:HHC:6937 and Liyakat Ali vs. State of H.P. 2026:HHC:6380 in support of her submissions.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JPrahlad Kumar – AppellantVersusState of HP – RespondentCr. MP(M) No. 443 of 2026

Confessional statements of a co-accused to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and call records alone are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for invoking the restrictive bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Prahlad Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 443 of 2026