##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No. 2782 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 2025 Reserved on: 17.7.2026 Date of decision: 11.8. 2026 Uploaded on: 11.8.2026 Dinesh Kumar. …Applicant/Appellant.

Versus State of H.P. …Respondent.

Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Applicant. Mr.Vivek Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Applicant/applicant has filed this application for enlarging him on bail by suspending sentence, including fine amount awarded to him for his conviction vide judgment dated 30.10.2024, passed by Special Judge-

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

II Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in case CIS Regd. No. NDPS/26/2023, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Khem RajP and others, in case FIR No. 12/2023, registered in Police Station Bro.w, District Kullu, H.P. under Sections 20 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Learned counsel for theo applicant, referring GD entry No. 008 dated 22.2.2023 recorded at 10 :43 A.M. (Ex. P2/PW6) has submitted that contents of this GD entryr clearly depicts that Police party was having prior information and, therefore, compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act was mandatory, but the prosecution/Investigating Officer has failed to comply withC provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which is fatal for the prosecution case and thus on this count applicant/appellant is definitely going to be acquitted and, therefore, he at least, deserves for suspension of sentence at this stage.

3. It has been submitted that in GD entry report, the purpose for departure of the Police party to lay nakabandi as ‘Khufia Suragh Barari of madak padarth’. Therefore, he has contended that there was a prior information about commission of offence related to narcotic drug and, therefore, non-compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is fatal for prosecution.

4. It has been contended that in NCB Form (Ex. P4/PW8), column No. 7 is blank and it has been admitted by the Investigating Officer PW13 Inspector Inder Singh that said column is blank and this fact has also been admitted by PW12 SI Pushp Dev, the then SHOP Police Station Braw, who had filled column No. 9 to 10. It has been f.urther stated that contraband was handed over by PW13 Inspector Inder Singh to PW14 ASI Ramesh Chand, who is second Investigating Officer, who, according to prosecution case, took the contraboand alongwith other documents to the Police Station and produced the same before PW12 SI Pushp Dev, the then SHO for re-sealing. r It has been submitted that no memo of re- sealing has been prepared or produced in the Court and, therefore, link witness regarding re-sealing and handing over the re-sealed contraband with MHC iCs missing and, therefore, break in link entitles suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant/appellant.

5. It has been further submitted that PW5 Smt. Utra Devi, an independent witness, who was Ward Panch in the concerned Panchayat, has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile and, therefore, the prosecution story has become doubtful and on this count also applicant/appellant is entitled for suspension of sentence.

6. Referring statements of PW6 Constable Baban Singh, it has been submitted that in case there was no prior information of transporting contraband in the vehicle, the Police party was expected to search entire vehicle as well as person of accused, but Police party did not do so and after recovery of alleged contraband from the vehicle, the said vehicle was not checked thoroughly which is unexpected from the Police party and it also creates doubt about the prosecution story. P 7. It has been further submitted that PW6 C.onstable Baban Singh has admitted in his cross-