17.04.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 April, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 17.04.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 April, 2026

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                                    2026:HHC:12161




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                          CrMP(M) No.328 of 2026




                                                                                .
                                          Decided on: 17.04.2026





    _______________________________________________________________
    Adhi Atwal                                ...........Petitioner





                                  Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                 ...........Respondent
    _______________________________________________________________
    Coram:




                                                     of
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.

    For the Petitioner                      :     Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate.
    For the Respondent
                          rt                :     Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal
                                                  Panwar, Additional Advocates
                                                  General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan

                                                  and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
                                                  Advocates General, for State.
                                  ASI Lalit Kumar, IO, PS


                                  Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur,
                                  present in person along with
                                  record.
    _______________________________________________________________




    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on

behalf of petitioner Adhi Atwal, who is behind bars since

27.12.2025, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.165/2025,

dated 29.09.2025, under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act,

registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur.

2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI

Lalit Kumar, IO, PS Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur , has come

present along with record. Record perused and returned.

1

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

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS

2026:HHC:12161
2

3. Close security of record/status report reveals that

on 29.09.2025 at 04:30 pm, Police party present near Toll Plaza,

.

Baloh, Bilaspur, stopped one car bearing No.T0825PB5265E,

Honda Amaze, for checking. On inquiry, driver of the vehicle

disclosed to the Police that vehicle in question is a Taxi and the

same was hired from Amritsar to Kullu. Since persons sitting on

of
the rear seat got perplexed, Police deemed it necessary to

conduct their search as well as of the vehicle and allegedly, in
rt
the presence of independent witnesses, recovered one bag,

which at relevant time was kept on the lap of one of the

occupant of the car, containing 518.4 grams of chitta/heroin.

Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on

record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband,

Police, after having completed necessary codal formalities,

lodged FIR detailed hereinabove and arrested both the

occupants of the car, namely Abhi Kumar and Rahul. Since

above named persons during investigation revealed that

contraband recovered from them was to be delivered to persons

namely Aditya and Girja Sharma, Police also arrested Aditya

and Girja Sharma, who further disclosed to the Police that

present bail petitioner Adhi Atwal deals in narcotics and they

have purchased afore quantity of contraband from him. Co-

accused Aditya disclosed to the Police that sum of ₹1,00,500/-

was deposited by him in the bank account of Adhi Atwal. In the

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
3

afore background, present bail petitioner, i.e. Adhi Atwal, also

came to be roped in the present case and he is behind bars

.

since 27.12.2025.

4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete

and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he

has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant

of
of regular bail.

5. Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel representing the
rt
petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner has been falsely

implicated. She states that there is no evidence adduced on

record to demonstrate that the contraband was recovered from

the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather, same was

recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused namely

Abhi Kmar and Rahul and petitioner herein has been roped

merely on the basis of statement made by co-accused Aditya

and Girja Sharma, which is otherwise not admissible in law. In

support of her afore contention, she placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v.

State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.

6. While fairly acknowledging 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 the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
4

him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer

for grant of regular bail deserves outright rejection. He states

.

that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record

suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and

he has been providing narcotics to some dealers, who further

sell the same to young population of the State. He states that

of
bare perusal of record of financial transaction placed on record

clearly reveals that co-accused Aditya had transferred some
rt
amount in the bank account of the bail petitioner, who, in lieu

of afore payment, made available commercial quantity of

contraband to co-accused Abhi Kumar and Rahul. Mr. Kahol

further states that since petitioner herein is from the State of

Punjab, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on

bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice,

but may again indulge in such activities and as such, prayer for

grant of bail made on his behalf deserves to be rejected.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused material available on record, this Court finds that

contraband was never recovered from conscious possession of

the bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the

conscious possession of co-accused Abhi Kumar and Rahul,

who allegedly disclosed to the Police that they had brought the

contraband to Kullu on the askance of co-accused Aditya and

Girja Sharma, against whom one case under the NDPS Act

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
5

already stands registered. Since co-accused Aditya disclosed

that he had deposited sum of ₹1,00,500/- in the bank account

.

of the present bail petitioner for purchase of contraband, Police

also registered against him and he is also behind bars. Question

which needs to be determined at this stage is “whether

statement of co-accused, if any made, thereby involving the

of
petitioner is sufficient to conclude the guilt of the petitioner or

not?”

8.
rt
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. No

doubt, rigours of Section 37 of the Act are attracted, but bare

perusal of provisions contained under Section 37 nowhere

suggests that no bail can be granted in cases involving

commercial quantity, rather in such cases, Court after affording

due opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor can proceed to

grant bail, if it is satisfied that the bail petitioner has been

falsely implicated and in the event of bail he/she will not

indulge in such activities again. In the case at hand, at present,

there is nothing to suggest that contraband was supplied by the

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
6

bail petitioner and there is also no record to suggest that in

past, he has been indulging in these activities.

.

9. While registering case against the present bail

petitioner, Police has placed heavy reliance upon the alleged

deposits made in his bank account, but once it is not in dispute

that contraband was not recovered from the conscious

of
possession of the bail petitioner, mere deposit, if any, made in

the bank account of the petitioner cannot be a ground to
rt
conclude the complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner at this

stage, rather same can be established in totality of evidence

collected on record by the prosecution. Reliance in this regard is

placed upon judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in

Amal E Vs. State of Kerala, 2023:KER:39393, whereby it

was categorically held that financial transactions are not

sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of a

crime. Relevant Para of afore judgment reads as under:

“From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen
that, apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is
nothing to show the involvement of the petitioners. It is
true that the documents indicate the monetary
transactions between the petitioners and some of the
accused persons, but the question that arises is whether
the said transactions were in connection with the sale of
Narcotic drugs. To establish the same, apart from the
confession statements of the accused, there is nothing.
However, as it is an aspect to be established during the
trial, I do not intend to enter into any finding at this

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
7

stage, but the said aspect is sufficient to record the
satisfaction of the conditions contemplated under
section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such

.

materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the
involvement of the petitioner.”

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

of
cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an

offence under Section 67 of the Act. Relevant para of the
rt
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

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
8

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,

of
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
rt
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. 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, as such,

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
9

this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in

jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing

.

remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by

learned Additional 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

of
petitioner to stringent conditions.

13. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the
rt
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.

14. 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.

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS

2026:HHC:12161
10

15. 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

of
to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by

reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive
rt
nor preventative.

16. 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.

17. 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

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS
2026:HHC:12161
11

accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of

offence and witnesses being influenced.

.

18. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a

case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail

petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to

furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one

of
surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned

trial Court, besides the following conditions:

(a)
rt
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.

19. 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.

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS

2026:HHC:12161
12

20. 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 petition alone.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

21. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted

by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds

of
from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to

ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order
rt
presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official

website of this Court.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge
April 17, 2026
(Rajeev Raturi)

::: Downloaded on – 20/04/2026 20:30:22 :::CIS