Shyam Singh Vs State of Hp

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MP(M) No.693 of 2026 Decided on: 04.05.2026

____________________________________________________________ Sh. Shyam Singh ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

¶5

ASI Kuldeep Singh, PS Nurpur, District Kangra, HP present in person along with record.

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶7

Sequel to order dated 27.04.2026, whereby this

¶8

Court enlarged the bail-petitioner on interim bail in case FIR No.284 of 2025, dated 22.12.2025, under Sections 20 and 29

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “ Act ”), registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Kuldeep Singh has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

¶12

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, while fairly admitting factum with regard to joining the investigation by the petitioner in terms of order dated 27.04.2026, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bailpetitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. He states that there is ample material adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner is a drug peddler and contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused Ravi Singh, was actually supplied by the bail-petitioner. He states that since bailpetitioner is a drug peddler, it may not be in the interest of

¶13

3

¶14

justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on 22.12.2025, police intercepted one scooty bearing registration No.HP-38F-1073 and allegedly recovered 452 grams of charas from the dicky of the scooty. Since co-accused Ravi Singh was found sitting on the scooty and was unable to render proper explanation qua possession of the aforesaid contraband, police lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove, and arrested him. During investigation, co-accused Ravi Singh disclosed to the police that he had purchased the afore quantity of contraband from the present bail petitioner. In the afore background, bail-petitioner also came to be named in the FIR, but before he could be taken into custody, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶16

4

¶17

Pursuant to order dated 27.04.2026, whereby bailpetitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, he has already joined investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him. Mr. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that save and except statement of co-accused Ravi Singh, there is nothing on record to suggest that bailpetitioner indulged in illegal trade of narcotic. He states that otherwise also, arrest of the bail-petitioner on bald statement of co-accused is not in accordance with law. He further states that there is nothing on record to suggest that bail-petitioner is a drug peddler and in past, no case under ND & PS Act has been registered against the bail-petitioner, rather he has been roped in the case merely on the basis of Call Detail Report. He states that since the bail petitioner deals in pulses and lentils, i.e., rajma, etc., persons from Punjab had been contacting him for the sale and purchase of the same.

¶18

No doubt, in the case at hand, contraband, which is of intermediate quantity, never came to be recovered from

¶19

5

¶20

the conscious possession of the bail-petitioner, rather same

¶21

was recovered from the conscious possession of the coaccused Ravi Singh, who is behind bars. Question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is that “whether the arrest of the bail-petitioner is valid on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused Ravi Singh?”

¶22

Hon’ble Apex Court in case Tofan Singh v. State

¶23

of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , has categorically held that statement, if any, made under Section 67 of the ND & PS Act, is inadmissible and same cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under ND & PS Act. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

¶24

“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.

¶25

6

¶26

1 56. 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

158. We answer the reference by stating:

¶29

(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 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.

¶30

(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.”

¶31

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State by

¶32

(NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr,

¶33

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 242 of 2022 (arising out

¶34

7

¶35

of diary No. 22702 of 2020) decided on 10.1.2022, again reiterated that confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the ND & PS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of

¶36

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 ND & PS 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.

¶37

Since bail-petitioner has already joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, there appears to be no justification for custodial interrogation of the bail-petitioner, rather he can be bound down to make himself available for investigation, as

¶38

8

¶39

and when required by the Investigating Agency. Moreover, on account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband, rigours of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted.

¶40

By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.

¶41

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶42

9

¶43

A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶44

There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

¶45

While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain

¶46

10

¶47

whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶48

To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

¶49

Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the

¶50

attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to

¶51

be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should

¶52

11

¶53

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.

¶54

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:-

¶55

“The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted

¶56

12

¶57

persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

¶58

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC

¶59

496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in

¶60

mind, while deciding petition for bail:

¶61

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶62

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶63

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶64

13

¶65

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

¶66

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

¶67

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶68

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

¶69

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

¶70

14. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated

¶71

27.04.2026 passed by this Court, are made absolute, with

¶72

following conditions:-

¶73

a. 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;

¶74

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

¶75

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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶76

d. he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶77

14

¶78

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his 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.

¶79

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 application alone. 17. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may

¶80

verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

¶81

May 04, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Shyam Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh 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

Man Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh

Raman Vs State of Hp

Rashmi Rajput Vs M/S Shakti Steel Company

Prem Chand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Keshav Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Heera Singh and Another Vs State of Hp