Himachal Pradesh High Court
Liyakat Ali vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. : 171 of 2026
Reserved on : 02.03.2026
Date of Decision : 10.03.2026.
Liyakat Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Lokinder Kutlehria, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 06/2025, dated 25.01.2025,
registered at Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamaba, H.P., for
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS)
Act.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
police were patrolling on 25.01.2025. They received information
at about 2:00 PM that a car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331
had sped away after noticing the Nakka. The car was found
abandoned at some distance, and the owner of the vehicle was
identified through the e-Challan records. He disclosed that he
had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar, whose location was
found between Lahad and Kunah. The police went to the spot and
found another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C 1969
parked on the road. The driver disclosed that his name is Dharu
Ram. The person sitting beside the driver disclosed his name as
Liyakat Ali (petitioner), and the person sitting in the rear seat
disclosed his name as Harinder Kumar. The police searched the
car bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 in the presence of
occupants of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969
and recovered 2.570 kilograms of charas. Liyakat Ali and Dharu
Ram ran away from the spot during the search. Police
investigated the matter. Co-accused Harinder Kumar and Dharu
Ram were arrested and released on bail. The petitioner was also
the occupant of the car bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969
and is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner
3
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may
impose. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 24.1.2025.
They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331.
The driver stopped the vehicle after seeing the police and ran
towards the jungle. The police followed him but could not
apprehend him. Shobhi Ram was found to be the registered
owner, who was contacted telephonically. He disclosed that he
had sold the vehicle to Harinder Kumar. The location of Harinder
Kumar was found between Lahad and Kunah. The police searched
for him and found a vehicle bearing registration No HP-01C-1969
parked on the roadside. The driver identified himself as Dharu
Ram. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as
Liyakat Ali (the present petitioner), and the person sitting in the
rear seat identified himself as Harinder Kumar. The police
brought them to the spot where the vehicle bearing registration
No. HP-44-5331 was parked. The vehicle was searched in the
presence of Abdul Mazeed and Basheer Mohammad. The police
were searching the vehicle when Dharu Ram and the petitioner
ran away from the spot. The police ran after them but could not
4
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
catch them. The search was continued, and the police recovered
2.570 kgs of charas. The police seized the charas. The police
investigated the matter and obtained the call detail record. The
record of CCTV Footage was also checked. The vehicles bearing
registration No. HP-01C-1969 and HP-44-5331 were found
moving together in the CCTV footage. Rakesh Kumar had talked
to Harinder Kumar and the petitioner many times between 7.30
AM and 12.48 PM. Police arrested Rakesh Kumar, Harinder Kumar
and Dharo Ram. The petitioner surrendered before the police on
15.12.2025 and was arrested on the same day at 6:25 Pm. The
supplementary charge-sheet was filed before the Court on
13.02.2026. Prosecution has cited 47 witnesses, and the matter is
listed for consideration of charge on 18.03.2026. Petitioner was
involved in the sale of a commercial quantity of charas. Petitioner
had earlier absconded, and he would again abscond if released on
bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
5
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
5. Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely
implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the
commission of the crime except his presence in the vehicle
bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969. The co-accused have
already been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail
on the principle of parity. The petitioner would abide by the terms
and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that
the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on
bail.
6. Mr Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the vehicles
bearing registration Nos. HP-01C-1969 and HP–44-5331 were
found moving together. The occupants of two vehicles were in
touch with each other. The police recovered a commercial
quantity of charas from the vehicle bearing registration no. HP-
44-5331. The petitioner had abetted the transportation of the
charas in it. The rigours of Section 37 of NDPS apply to the
present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be
dismissed.
6
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC
314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page
380:-
(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC
240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on
the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the
context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid
down the key factors that should be considered while
granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244,
paras 7-9)
“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the
vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be
liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears
upon the issue.
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice
would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant
jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick
Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford
University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law
Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this
context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is
applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record,
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit
serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part
7( 2026:HHC:6380 )
of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has
enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further
crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis
of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is
therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis
supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC
280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects
that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an
application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as
follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner.
While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused
at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and
similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that
for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used
the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the
evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of
bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will
be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the
charge.” (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in
matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In
highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of
course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, calls for
the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent
8
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that
the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the
matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary
from case to case. While placement of the accused in the
society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a
guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same
should always be coupled with other circumstances
warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one
of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more
heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of
the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of
the matter.” (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is
established that a court considering a bail application cannot
undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an
elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is
required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the
grant of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC
496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a
High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order
would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind,
rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to
the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be
set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided
the Court’s decision to grant bail have also been detailed as
under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting
bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the
High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled
that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
9
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.” (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of
application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of
discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused
is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2
SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu
Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu
Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High
Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows:
(Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC
(Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)
“35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of
the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and
the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when
the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in
nature but are supported by adequate material brought on
record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie
conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of
bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons
and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of
the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given
to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of
punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the
offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)
10( 2026:HHC:6380 )
9. The status report mentions that the petitioner was
occupying the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1969,
which was moving with another vehicle bearing registration No.
HP-44-5331 from which the commercial quantity of charas was
recovered. The mere fact that two vehicles were found to be
moving one after the other on the highway is prima facie not
sufficient to connect them without further evidence.
10. The status report also mentions that Rakesh Kumar,
Harinder Kumar, petitioner Liyakat Ali and Dharu Ram were
found to be in touch with each other on 24.01.2025 from 7:43 am
till 12:48 pm. This is not sufficient. It was laid down by this Court
in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 211
that the call details record is not sufficient to keep the person in
custody. It was observed: –
“[16] In the facts of the instant case, the prosecution, for
implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the confessional
statement made by accused Dabe Ram and secondly the CDR
details of calls exchanged between the petitioner and the wife
of co-accused Dabe Ram. Taking into consideration the
evidence with respect to the availability of CDR details
involving the phone number of the petitioner and the mobile
phone number of the wife of co-accused Dabe Ram, this Court
had considered the existence of a prima facie case against the
petitioner and had rejected the bail application as not
satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
11
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
[17] Since the existence of CDR details of accused person(s)
has not been considered as a circumstance sufficient to hold a
prima facie case against the accused person(s), in Pallulabid
Ahmad’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner
has made out a case for maintainability of his successive bail
application as also for grant of bail in his favour.
[18] Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure
statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to
have been collected against the petitioner. The disclosure
made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner
as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan
Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 4 SCC 1. Further, on the
basis of the aforesaid elucidation, the petitioner is also
entitled to the benefit of bail.
11. A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs.
State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 1894 of 2023, decided on 01.09.2023,
Parvesh Saini vs State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 2355 of 2023, decided on
06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of
2023, decided on 15.05.2023.
12. The allegations made by the prosecution may give rise
to a suspicion, but are not sufficient to prima facie conclude that
the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence.
13. The police have filed the charge sheet before the
Court, and the matter is listed for consideration of the charge on
18.03.2026, which means that the investigation is complete and
no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in
custody.
12
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
14. It was submitted that the petitioner is involved in the
abetment of the commercial quantity of charas, and the rigours of
Section 37 of NDPS apply to the present case. This submission is
not acceptable. There is nothing to connect the petitioner to the
commission of the crime except the calls made by him, which,
prima facie, are insufficient to connect the petitioner to the
commission of the crime. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.
15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent
resident of District Chamba, which was not stated to be incorrect
in the status report. It means that the petitioner has roots in
society, and there is no chance of his absconding.
16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide
by the following terms and conditions: –
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he
influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing
and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;
13
( 2026:HHC:6380 )
(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a
continuous period of seven days without furnishing the
address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police
Station concerned and the Trial Court;
(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the
Court; and
(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social
media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the
summons/notices received from the Police/Court through
SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change
in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will
be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the
date of the change.
17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file
a petition for cancellation of the bail.
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of
this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Chamba,
and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
19. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on
the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
__March, 2026 Digitally signed by
CHANDER CHANDER
SHEKHAR
(Sushma) SHEKHAR Date: 2026.03.10
13:11:04 +0530