Reserved On:- 07.11.2025 vs State Of H.P

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2456 of 2025 Reserved on:- 07.11.2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 Dharam Pal ...Applicant

Versus State of H.P. .....Respondent

Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge

By way of the present application, filed under

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), applicant-

Dharam Pal has sought his release, on bail, during the

pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.279 of 2024,

dated 29.09.2024, registered under Sections 15, 29- 61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS

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

2. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

Act'), with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan,

H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent

person and has falsely been implicated, in this case.

3. It is the case of the applicant that he has no

connection whatsoever, with the alleged crime and the

prosecution has made out totally a false, frivolous and

concocted story against him.

4. As per the stand of the applicant, he belongs

to a reputed family and has unnecessarily been dragged,

in the present case.

5. According to the applicant, the investigation,

in the present case, is completed and no useful purpose

would be served, by keeping the applicant in judicial

custody.

6. The applicant had earlier tried his luck by

moving the similar bail application before the Court of

learned Special Judge-III, Solan, H.P. However, the said

application was dismissed, vide order dated 16.06.2025.

Thereafter, the applicant has moved Cr.MP(M) No.1774 of

2025, before this Court, which was dismissed on

3. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

04.09.2025, on the ground of concealment of material

facts.

7. Apart from this, Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate,

appearing for the applicant, has given certain

undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the

applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be

released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. Apart from this, the applicant has given the

details of the following two cases registered against him:-

(i) FIR No.61 of 2019, dated 21.02.2019, registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act, with Police Station Nalagarh.

(ii) FIR No.48 of 2024, dated 07.10.2024, registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act, with Police Station Ramshehar.

9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to allow the bail application.

10. When, put to notice, the police has filed the

status report, disclosing therein, that on 29.09.2024, ASI

Ranjeet Singh, along with the other police officials, in

private Vehicle No.HP20E-7521 and HP12J-6915, was on

patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to

excise and narcotics, in the territorial jurisdiction of

4. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

Police Station, Nalagarh. When they were present near

playground in village Tirla, then, at about 1:00 PM, he

received a secret information, about the indulgence of

Naresh Kumar, resident of Mahua, Tehsil Nalagarh,

District Solan, H.P., in an illegal business of selling

poppy husk. As per the information, Naresh Kumar is

selling poppy husk to customers at their residences and

he had concealed the poppy husk in his residential

house, as well as, in his Cowshed.

10.1. As per the information, in case, said Naresh

Kumar is nabbed and his house and cowshed are

searched, then, a large quantity of poppy husk could be

recovered. According to the IO, if, he would have

obtained the search warrants, then, delay could have

occurred and in that eventuality, there were chances of

removal of contraband from there.

10.2. As the information was authenticated and

reliable, a report under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, was

prepared and submitted to SDPO Nalagarh. Thereafter,

they proceeded towards the spot and when, they reached

outside village Mahua, Sanjay Kumar and Kamal Nayan

5. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

met, who were apprised about the factual position and

were associated in the raiding party, as independent

witnesses. Thereafter, they reached the residential

house of Naresh Kumar, where a person was found

present, IO gave his identification, as well as,

identification of the raiding party to the said person.

10.3. On inquiry, the said person disclosed his

name as Naresh Kumar son of Amar Chand. Thereafter,

his house was searched. During search, 60.983 kg

poppy husk was recovered.

10.4. After completing other formalities, rukka was

prepared and submitted to Police Station, upon which,

FIR, was registered and said Naresh Kumar was

arrested. Thereafter, the case property was produced

before the Court for conducting the inventory

proceedings, under Section 52A of ND&PS Act.

Subsequently, sample was sent to SFSL, Junga.

10.5. The accused was produced before the Court,

from where, he was remanded to police custody. During

the police custody, he has disclosed that one Dharam

Pal, son of Prem Lal, resident of village Chori, Post Office

6. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

Saur, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan, (applicant) is

partner in the crime in qeustion, as, they used to

purchase contraband from the adjoining State and

thereafter, sell the same.

10.6. Thereafter, the CDRs of mobile phone of

Naresh Kumar, bearing No.98165-09228 and 70188-

81990 were obtained. The perusal of the same shows

that accused Naresh Kumar was having long

conversation with Dharam Pal (applicant).

10.7. On 06.10.2024, ASI Narayan Dev, searched

for Dharam Pal (applicant). He was found in his village

and thereafter, his residential house was searched.

During search of his residential house, poppy husk,

weighing 436 grams, was recovered, upon which, FIR

No.48 of 2024, was registered, with Police Station,

Ramshehar.

10.8. On the basis of the investigation, spot visit,

statements of the witnesses, as per the revelation made

by accused Naresh Kumar and as per the recovery of

poppy husk, from Dharam Pal (applicant), he was

arrested on 06.10.2024 under Sections 15, 29 of ND&PS

7. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

Act. Thereafter, he was remanded to police custody, but,

even during police custody, he has not disclosed about

the source.

10.9. After complying with the provisions of Section

52A, the sample was sent to SFSL, Junga, from where,

positive report has been received.

10.10. It is the further case of the police that two

more cases, were found to be registered against the

applicant:-

(i) FIR No.61 of 2019, dated 21.02.2019, registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act, with Police Station Nalagarh.

(ii) FIR No.48 of 2024, dated 07.10.2024, registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act, with Police Station Ramshehar.

11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the bail application.

12. The contraband, involved in the present case

i.e. FIR No.279 of 2024, the quantity is 60.983 kg, of

poppy husk, which falls within the definition of

commercial quantity, as such, before releasing the

applicant on bail, in case of recovery of contraband,

which falls within the definition of commercial quantity,

8. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

it is incumbent upon this Court to record reason, which

would be more than the prima-facie reason, with regard

to the existence of twin conditions, as enumerated, under

Section 37(b)(ii) of NDPS Act, i.e. the accused is not guilty

of such offence and while on bail, he will not commit any

offence.

13. Admittedly, involvement of the applicant has

been found, on the basis of alleged revelation made by

accused Naresh Kumar, which he had made on

04.10.2024, when, he was remanded to police custody.

14. Apart from this, his alleged involvement has

been found to be on the basis of the CDRs of the mobile

phone numbers of Naresh Kumar and Dharam Pal.

15. It is no longer res-integra that the statement

made by the co-accused, during police custody cannot be

used against his co-accused. In this regard, it is apt to

rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

'Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu', (2021) 4

Supreme Court Cases 1, the said statement cannot be

taken into account, in order to convict the accused,

9. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

under the provisions of NDPS Act. Relevant paragraph

158.1 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"158.1 That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act."

16. So far as the CDRs, which have heavily been

relied upon by the Police, in this case, are concerned,

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru

versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., reported in

2022 (2) SCALE 14 has held that evidentiary value of

the CDRs is to be determined, during trial. Relevant

portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 9 of 12 2022 Live Law (SC) 63 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF

10. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless."

(self emphasis supplied)

17. The CDRs can only provide information like

Caller ID, duration and Cell Tower Details, however, they

do not capture the substance of the conversation itself.

These are the call record details, which are the metadata

(data about data) about the call and the same is totally

different from call recording, which offers direct evidence

of the communication, including specific words spoken

and context of the conversation, which can be crucial, for

deciding the matter.

11. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

18. In view of the above, at this stage, it can be

said that the twin conditions, as enumerated, under

Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, are existing in his

favour and it can be said that accused is not guilty of

such offence and while on bail, he will not commit any

offence. Moreover, for the second condition, i.e. he will

not commit any offence, reasonable conditions can be

imposed, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail.

19. The applicant has approached this Court for

seeking the relief of bail, on the ground that the police

could not collect any evidence to connect him, with the

crime in question.

20. Investigation, in the present case, is

complete and the charge sheet has been filed in the

competent Court of law. The case is now listed for service

on 30.10.2025.

21. Moreover, the chances of commencement

and conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near

future, are not so bright. As such, he cannot be kept in

judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period.

12. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

22. So far as the registration of two cases, as

mentioned, in the status report, as well as, in the

application, are concerned, admittedly the applicant has

not been convicted, in any of the cases, registered

against him.

23. The bail application cannot be rejected, as a

matter of punishment, as, pretrial punishment is

prohibited under the law and punishment can only be

imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court

of law.

24. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident

of District Solan, as such, it cannot be apprehended that

in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not

be available for the trial.

25. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the

view that the present bail application is liable to be

allowed and is accordingly allowed.

26. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be

released, on bail, in case FIR No.279 of 2024, dated

29.09.2024, registered under Sections 15, 29-61-85 of

the NDPS Act, with Police Station, Nalagarh, District

13. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum

of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

27. This order, however, shall be subject to the

following conditions:-

a) Applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and

d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

e) Applicant will file the affidavit on or before 10th of every month, before the learned trial Court, by mentioning the fact that no other criminal case has been registered against him.

28. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the

merits of the case, as these observations are confined,

only to the disposal of the present bail application.

14. ( 2025:HHC:38616 )

29. It is made clear that respondent-State is at

liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of

the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.

30. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy

of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District

Jail, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through e-

mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in

the e-prison software.

31. In case, the applicant is not released within a

period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the

Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Solan, District

Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to inform this fact

to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of

Jail, District Jail, Solan, District Solan, Himachal

Pradesh, is further directed that if the applicant fails to

furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this

Court, within a period of one month from today, then,

the said fact be submitted to this Court.

(Virender Singh) Judge November 17, 2025 (subhash)

Digitally signed by PRADEEP PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.17 17:12:14 +0530