Dismissed

Tule Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CRMP/2550/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court rejected an application for suspension of sentence in a narcotics case. The court distinguished the applicant from a cited Supreme Court case involving a taxi driver, noting the applicant was driving alone with contraband hidden in the vehicle, unsupported by defense taken in cross-examination or Section 313 statement.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of, submission rejected.

Tule Singh Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Tule Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

¶2

Cr.A.(C-DB) No. 39 of 2026

¶3

15.09.2026

¶4

Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocates, for the appellantapplicant.

¶5

Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶6

CRMP No. 2550 of 2026

¶7

After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to agree with him that a prima-facie case is made out for suspension of sentence.

¶8

The applicant-appellant has been found travelling alone in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP01C0612 along with contraband, i.e., 6.324 Kilograms of Charas and 413 Grams of Opium, which was hidden in dickey of the car below the cardboard as well as under the front seat of the vehicle.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that applicant was only driver of the taxi and his services were hired by the other accused persons for transporting their luggage, whereas no such defence has been taken during cross-examination of Investigating Officer as well as in the statement of applicant-appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶10

It is also apt to record that it was not the luggage kept in the dickey or seat of the vehicle, but was that the

¶11

contraband was recovered, being hidden under the cardboard of the dickey as well as under the seat and, therefore, there is no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant-applicant has also submitted that in a similar case, i.e., Cr. Appeal No. 1221 of 2017 , titled Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale vs. The State of Karnataka , taxi driver was acquitted by the Apex Court. Facts of the said case are entirely different, as in that case the taxi driver was carrying passengers along with their luggage, whereas in present case, the taxi driver himself was driving the taxi and was traveling alone, and the recovery of the contraband was made from the bags hidden under the cardboard of the dickey and also one bag was found kept under the front seat.

¶13

Faced with the queries raised by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that this application be disposed of, without returning findings on merits, with regard to the submissions made by him. Therefore, as prayed, the application is disposed of in terms of the prayer, being rejected.

¶14

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶15

(Bhupesh Sharma) Judge

¶16

15th September, 2026 (Susheel)

Tule Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tule Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases