Aman Vs State of Hp

¶1

2025:HHC:32450

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

Cr.MP (M) Nos.: 2243 to 2245 of 2025 Decided on : 18^th September, 2025

¶4

Cr.MP(M) No.2243 of 2025 Sudhir Hudda …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No.2244 of 2025 Aman …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No.2245 of 2025 Aman Juneja …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the applicant(s) : Mr. Munish Datwalia and Mr. Kumar, Advocates.	Ram
For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chandel, Addit	ional
Advocate General assisted by	ASI
Kapil Dev, Police St	ation
Sundernagar, District Mandi.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge ( Oral )

¶9

The order of mine shall dispose of all the three

¶10

above titled bail applications, filed by the applicants, under

¶11

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

2

¶13

2025:HHC:32450

¶14

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release them on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.180 of 2025, dated 21.08.2025, registered, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic

¶15

Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P .

¶16

According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated by the Police, in the present case, whereas, according to them, they have nothing to do with the contraband, which allegedly has been shown to be recovered from them.

¶17

The applicants are in the judicial custody since 21.08.2025. According to them, investigation, in the present case, is complete and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them in the judicial custody.

¶18

It is the further case of the applicants that the contraband, i.e., 282 grams of Charas, allegedly recovered, from the applicants, does not fall within the definition of

¶19

3

¶20

2025:HHC:32450

¶21

commercial quantity, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not applicable in the present case.

¶22

Apart from this, clear antecedents of all the applicants, have also been put forward, as one of the grounds, to seek the relief of bail.

¶23

The applicants have earlier tried their luck by moving similar applications before the learned Special Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, however, their applications were dismissed on 28.08.2025.

¶24

Apart from this, Mr. Munish Datwalia and Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocates, appearing for the applicants, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicants, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

¶25

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.

¶26

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 21.08.2025, the I.O. HC Hans Raj No.76, has submitted a rukka to Police Station Sudernagar, through Constable Satish

¶27

4

¶28

2025:HHC:32450

¶29

Kumar No.677, mentioning therein that on 21.08.2025, he, along with other police officials, in his personal vehicle, was on patrolling duty, as well as duty to check the traffic and picketing and were present at Pungh fourlane. They were checking the vehicles, which were coming from Sundernagar side.

¶30

9.1. At about 9.20 a.m., the police party noticed a white coloured vehicle bearing registration No.HR12AX 8695, coming from Sundernagar side. The I.O. has given the signal to the driver to stop the vehicle, upon which, the driver stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road. When the I.O., went near the vehicle, he noticed three persons including the person on the wheel.

¶31

9.2. The I.O. had demanded the requisite papers from the driver of the vehicle, upon which, the driver has shown his reluctance to show the requisite documents. All the three persons were found perplexed, upon which, the I.O. developed suspicion that some suspicious or stolen articles or some narcotic substance could be there in the vehicle. As such, it is deemed appropriate to search the vehicle, in the presence of witnesses.

¶32

5

¶33

2025:HHC:32450

¶34

9.3. After some time, a Tipper bearing No.HP65B 5200, being driven by its driver, came there. The driver of the Tipper was requested to be the independent witness, after apprising him about the factual position, upon which, he has given his consent to be the witness. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Sunil Dutt son of Shri Shyam Lal. Thereafter, the I.O., requested Constable Satish Kumar No.677, to be the independent witness.

¶35

9.4. Thereafter, the spot was videographed and photographed. In the presence of the witnesses, the driver of vehicle No.HR12AX8695 was inquired. He has disclosed his name as Sudhir Hudda (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.2243 of 2025), the person sitting by his side disclosed his name, as Aman Juneja (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.2245 of 2025), and the person sitting on the back seat of the vehicle disclosed his name as Aman (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.2244 of 2025).

¶36

9.5. Thereafter, the I.O., in the presence of the witnesses, started searching the vehicle. When the dashboard of the vehicle was opened, a black coloured polythene envelope was found. On opening the same, two

¶37

6 2025:HHC:32450

¶38

khakhi envelopes, wrapped with tape, were found. On opening the same, it was found containing black coloured substance, which, on smelling and on the basis of experience and as disclosed by the applicants, was found to be Charas/Cannabis. On weighment, it was found to be 282 grams.

¶39

After completion of other codal formalities, the abovenoted FIR, was registered and further investigation was entrusted to ASI Kapil Dev.

¶40

During investigation, spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses, under Section 180 of BNSS were recorded. Thereafter, the accused were arrested, as per the law. They were medicolegally examined by producing them before the Medical Officer, CH, Sundernagar. The vehicle bearing registration No.HR12 AX8695 was also taken into possession, along with documents.

¶41

It is the further case of the police that the case property was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sundernager. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been

¶42

7 2025:HHC:32450

¶43

completes. The contraband was also sent to SFSL Junga, from where, positive report has been received.

¶44

It has also been mentioned, in the status report, except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicants.

¶45

It has also been apprehended, in the status report that in case the applicants are released on bail, they may coerce the witnesses and since the applicants are residents of the adjoining State, they may not be available for trial and may indulge in the same activities, in case, they are ordered to be released on bail,.

¶46

On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General, has prayed that the bail applications may kindly be dismissed.

¶47

Heard.

¶48

Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed.

¶49

Except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against the applicants, as such, presumption of innocence is still available to the applicants.

¶50

8

¶51

2025:HHC:32450

¶52

Admittedly, the contraband allegedly recovered,

¶53

in the present case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case.

¶54

The role allegedly played by the applicants, in the commission of the alleged crime, will be proved during the trial.

¶55

The chances of commencement and conclusion of the trial, against the applicants, in near future, are not so bright. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period, as pretrial punishment is prohibited under the law.

¶56

So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed in the status report are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case the applicants are ordered to be released on bail.

¶57

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail applications are liable to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. Consequently, the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, during the pendnecy of the

¶58

9

¶59

2025:HHC:32450

¶60

trial, arising out of FIR No.180 of 2025, dated 21.08.2025, registered, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act , with Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P ., on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of Rs.50,000/, each, with one surety, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

¶61

This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :

¶62

“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;

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

Any of the observations made herein above shall

¶67

not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of

¶68

10

¶69

2025:HHC:32450

¶70

the case as these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶71

It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant.

¶72

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the eprison software.

¶73

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, Mandi, District Mandi, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Mandi. The Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, 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.

¶74

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶75

September 18, 2025 (ps)

¶76

Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.09.18 RAJNI 16:43:10 +0530

Aman v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Janata Vs Ajay Sood

Sumitra Vs Neeraj Kumar and Another

Bhupender Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee Vs Kusum Sood

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Hp Gramin Bank Bithal

Ashutosh Thakur Vs Vikrant Sharma