CRMPM/1838/2026 on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1838 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.10.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gurditta Singh @Guri ...Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner, namely Gurditta Singh alias Guri, who is behind bars since 20.5.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 139 of 2026 dated 8.5.2026 registered at Police Station Nalagarh under Sections 21 and 29-61-85 of NDPS Act.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Ranjeet Singh, has com come present with record. Record perused and returned.

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

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 8.5.2026, police party present near Panjehra received a secret information that person namely Pavan Kumar alias Billa indulges in the illegal trade of narcotics and at present, he is looking for customers at Kashmirpur- Joghon road. On the basis of aforesaid information, police constituted a raiding team and apprehended the aforesaid person at Kashmirpur-Joghon road in the presence of independent witnesses. Since aforesaid Pavan Kumar, who at the relevant time was driving the car, got perplexed and started making excuses and attempted to flee away from the spot, police after apprehending him caused his personal search as well as search of the vehicle and allegedly recovered 101 grams of chitta from a polythene bag he was carrying. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record for possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities lodged FIR as detailed hereinabove and since then he is behind bars.

4. Allegedly, aforesaid person disclosed to the police that he had purchased the contraband from the present bail petitioner at Amritsar. Police also arrested the present bail

petitioner on 20.5.2026 and since then he is also behind bars.

5. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer has been made on his behalf for grant of regular bail.

6. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler, who has been selling drugs in various parts of State of Himachal Pradesh. He states that since bail petitioner resides in Punjab and hails from other State, it may be difficult to secure his presence in the trial in the event of his being enlarged on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record, this Court finds that intermediate quantity of contraband never came to be

recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of co accused Pavan Kumar. Bail petitioner came to be roped in the case on the basis of alleged disclosure statement made by above named Pavan Kumar that he had purchased the recovered quantity of contraband from the present bail petitioner. To substantiate connection of the petitioner with co accused Pavan, investigating agency has adduced on record financial transactions inter se present bail petitioner and co-accused Pavan Kumar to suggest that sum of Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 52,000/- was transferred in the bank account of the present bail petitioner as well as his sister in law Komal.

8. Question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is “whether statement, if any, made by co accused is sufficient to conclude guilt of the present bail petitioner or not?” It is also required to be determined “whether on the basis of statement of co accused, investigating agency could have arrested the present bail petitioner or not?”

9. Since petitioner herein has been roped in the present FIR merely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, coupled with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner herein could not be arrested merely on the statement made by co-accused.

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in case Tofan Singh (supra), has categorically held that disclosure statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under Section 67 of the Act. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “155.Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and

45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us.

157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal are correct in law.

158. We answer the reference by stating:

(i) 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.

(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 242 of 2022 (arising out of diary No. 22702 of 2020) decided on 10.1.2022, again reiterated that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in this case upheld the order/judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka granting bail to the accused arrested by the

petitioner NCB on the basis of confessional/voluntary statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial.

12. Leaving everything aside, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband. Moreover, considerable time is likely to be consumed in trial and as such, in case petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail during trial, it may not only amount to pre trial conviction, but would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is not permissible.

13. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency. Apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General, that in the event of being

enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

14. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

15. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

17. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

18. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from

disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

(e) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the investigating agency.

20. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

21. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

22. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge October 16, 2026 (manjit)