Ravinder Singh @ Shyamu Vs State of Hp

¶1

2025:HHC:39369

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 2571 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025.

¶4

Ravinder Singh @ Shyamu ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl*	a,*Judge.*
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹	No
For the Petitioner :	M/s Ajay Sipahiya and Tarun Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State. :	Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 45/2025, dated 28.02.2025, registered at Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18, 20, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

¶9

It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent, and he was arrested on 13.03.2025. The police have filed the charge

¶10

1

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

sheet after the completion of the investigation. The matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 26.11.2025. The prosecution has cited 50 witnesses. The prosecution is relying upon the call detail record and the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. This Court has already released the co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Lucky in CrMP(M) No. 2187 of 2025 decided on 17.10.2025. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶14

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting the police party was patrolling on 28.02.2025 at Joginder Nagar Bus Stand, where Constable Bunty Jamwal informed them that he had apprehended three persons at Gugli Khad in suspicious conditions. The police reached the spot where they met Constables Manish Kumar, Bunty Jamwal and Ashok Kumar. They had apprehended three persons, who revealed their names as Ganga Ram, Mani Ram and Sher Singh. Ganga Ram had a black backpack with him. The police searched the backpack in the presence of Rakesh Kumar and Arshad Mohammad and recovered 3 kilograms and 11 grams of charas and 310 grams of opium. The police seized

¶15

3

¶16

the charas and opium and arrested Ganga Ram, Mani Ram and Sher Singh. The police interrogated them. Ganga Ram revealed that he had concealed 2.109 Kilograms of Charas. He led the police to the spot, and the police recovered 2.109 kilograms of Charas. The police seized the charas. It was found during the investigation that charas was to be delivered to Gaurav alias Jolly. The police checked the call detail record and found that Ganga Ram was in touch with Gaurav @ Jolly. Ganga Ram had shared a photograph of a sample of opium with him on his WhatsApp number. The police obtained the WhatsApp conversation and seized the mobile phone. Subsequently, Gaurav alias Jolly surrendered before the police. He revealed during the investigation that he and petitioner, Ravinder alias Shyamu, used to purchase charas and opium from Ganga Ram and other persons. He also named Nitish Kumar as his associate. Petitioner Ravinder Kumar used to maintain the record of the charas sold by Ganga Ram to Gaurav alias Jolly. Police also arrested the petitioner Ravinder Kumar and Nitish Kumar. The police checked their call detail record and found that Ganga Ram and Jolly had talked to each other 304 times between 01.09.2023 and 27.02.2025. Gaurav had talked to Nitish Kumar 416 times between 04.09.2023 and 27.02.2025. Gaurav had talked to

¶17

4

¶18

petitioner Ravinder 21 times between 23.10.2023 and 25.02.2025. Gaurav and petitioner Ravinder had talked to each other on another mobile 115 times. Similarly, Ganga Ram and Jagdish had talked to each other 4 times. The data from the mobile phone of Gaurav alias Jolly and Nitish Kumar could not be retrieved as one mobile phone was put into factory reset, and the data was deleted from the other mobile phone. The police seized the mobile phone, which was sent to the Laboratory, and the result is awaited. Nitish Kumar had provided a vehicle to Gaurav. He had helped Gaurav escape. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report.

¶19

I have heard M/s Ajay Sipahiya and Tarun Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/state.

¶20

Mr Ajay Sipahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused and the call detail records, which are not sufÏcient to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The Court had already

¶21

5

¶22

released the co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Lucky on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶23

Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had abetted the possession of a commercial quantity of charas. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶24

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶25

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: -

¶26

( i ) Broad principles for the grant of bail

¶27

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

¶28

6

¶29

granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

¶30

“ 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 a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

¶31

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.]

¶32

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 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)

¶33

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)

¶34

“ 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

¶35

7

¶36

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)

¶37

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)

¶38

“ 3 . Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, 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 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 the placement of the accused in 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)

¶39

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 can-

¶40

8

¶41

not 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.

¶42

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)

¶43

“ 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 :

¶44

( 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 ;

¶45

( iii ) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction ; ( iv ) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail ;

¶46

( v ) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused ;

¶47

( vi ) likelihood of the offence being repeated ;

¶48

( vii ) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

¶49

( viii ) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail .” (emphasis supplied)

¶50

xxxxxxx

¶51

9

¶52

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)

¶53

“ 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)

¶54

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶55

The status report mentions that Ganga Ram called his friend Nitish Kumar to his home. Nitish Kumar took Gaurav in his vehicle to Gugli Khad and Dhelu. Petitioner Ravinder was called and was told about the incident. Nitish and Ravinder went to

¶56

10

¶57

Gagal, where Gaurav stayed in the Orion Hotel. Ravinder and Nitesh had arranged a vehicle bearing registration No.HP29B-3221 for transporting Gaurav. Nitish Kumar handed over his mobile SIM to Gaurav to save him from punishment. Ravinder and Jolly have been involved in the sale/purchase of charas and opium since 2023. They were talking to each other, and this fact is confirmed by the call detail record. Thus, the prosecution is relying upon the statement made by the co-accused and the call detail record. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588 that a statement made by a co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was observed at page 568: -

¶58

44. Such a person, viz., the person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eye of the law, can indeed be questioned, and the statement is taken by the police ofÏcer. A confession that is made to a police ofÏcer would be inadmissible, having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A confession, which is vitiated under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, would also be inadmissible. A confession, unless it fulfils the test laid down in Pakala Narayana Swami [Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, 1939 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1938-39) 66 IA 66: AIR 1939 PC 47] and as accepted by this Court, may still be used as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. This, however, is

¶59

11

¶60

subject to the bar of admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.”

¶61

Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence OfÏcer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC 271 that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently held in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (4) SCC 1 that a confession made to a police ofÏcer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the coaccused implicating the petitioner.

¶62

A similar situation arose before this Court in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 Cri. L.J. 4564, and it was held that a confession of the co-accused and the phone calls are not sufÏcient to deny bail to a person.

¶63

It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 21 1 that where the police

¶64

12

¶65

have no material except the call details record and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody. It was observed: -

¶66

“ [16] In the facts of the instant case also 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.

¶67

[17] Since the existence of CDR details of accused person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance sufÏcient 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.

¶68

[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.

¶69

A similar view was taken by this Court in Dabe Ram vs.

¶70

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

¶71

13

¶72

06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of 2023, decided on 15.05.2023,

¶73

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused or the confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.

¶74

The police have added Section 27A of the NDPS Act. This Section is prima facie not attracted to the present case because it requires harbouring any person indulged in the activities specified in 2 (vii) (b) sub clauses (i) to (v). Section 2(vii) (b) deals with cultivating coca plant, opium poppy or cannabis plant, production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation warehousing etc of Narcotic Drugs, dealing in any activities in Narcotic Drugs or handling or letting out any premises for carrying out the activities. Even if the prosecution's case is accepted to be correct, that the petitioner had harboured Nitish Kumar, there is insufÏcient material to connect Nitish Kumar to any of the activities specified in Section 2(vii) (b) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27A of the NDPS Act cannot be prima facie accepted as correct.

¶75

14

¶76

It is undisputed that the co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Lucky has been released on bail. The petitioner is stated to have harboured Nitish Kumar @ Lucky. Therefore, the role of the petitioner is similar to Nitish Kumar @ Lucky. When Nitish Kumar is released on bail, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

¶77

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions:

¶78

(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶79

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶80

(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.

¶81

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

¶82

(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

¶83

15

¶84

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.

¶85

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.

¶86

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶87

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.

¶88

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶89

Digitally signed 21^st November,2025 CHANDER by CHANDERSHEKHAR (Nikita) SHEKHAR Date: 2025.11.21 16:07:53 +0530

Ravinder Singh @ Shyamu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh @ Shyamu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawana Vs Punjab National Bank

Tauseef Ahmed and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Upasana Jhina Vs Amit Thakur

Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through its Manager Vs Deepak Kumar

State of Hp Vs Mohinder Singh

Krishan Dutt Vs State of Hp and Others