Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jhabe Ram @ Jhave Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 1297 of 2025
Reserved on: 24.06.2025
Date of Decision: 01.07.2025
Jhabe Ram @ Jhave Ram …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. Rakesh Thakur and Mr. Panku,
Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was
arrested vide F.I.R. No. 74 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25, and
29 read with Section 35 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act‘) registered at Police Station
Dharmapur, District Solan (H.P.). A false FIR was registered
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
against the petitioner. Co-accused, Mintu, has already been
released on bail. Petitioner, Jhabe Ram, was implicated based on
the disclosure statement made by co-accused-Harjit Singh. The
petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the crime.
The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible in
evidence. No money was transferred to the bank account of the
petitioner. No recovery was effected from him. The police have
filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served
by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner was
arrested on 12.05.2024, and more than one year has elapsed
since the petitioner’s arrest. He would abide by all 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.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on
09.05.2024. They received a secret information at 12:15 pm that
a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01AA-0566 was parked at
Subathu Dharampur road near the rain shelter Chapla. Harjeet
Singh, the driver of the vehicle, was transporting a huge
quantity of Charas, and Charas could be recovered by searching
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
the vehicle. The information was credible, which was reduced to
writing and sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police party
proceeded towards the rain shelter. The police found the vehicle
near the rain shelter. The driver of the vehicle identified himself
as Harjeet Singh. The police searched the vehicle in the presence
of two independent witnesses and recovered two plastic bags
wrapped in khaki plastic kept behind the driver’s seat cover. The
police checked the packets and found that they contained black
sticks, which were identified as Charas. The police seized the
Charas and arrested the driver. Harjeet Singh was interrogated,
and he revealed that the Charas was given to him by Jhabe Ram
after taking it out of the pit near the hill. He was directed by
Mintu Kumar to bring the Charas. He led the police to the spot,
and the police recovered 2 bags. One was containing 36 packets
of Charas. The packets were weighed, and their weight was
found to be 21.120 kgs. The other bag contained 22 packets,
which were found to contain 14.650 kgs of Charas. Police seized
the Charas. Police arrested Jhabe Ram, who revealed during the
interrogation that he and Mintu were dealing with the Charas in
partnership. He used to supply Charas to Mintu, and they used to
share the money obtained by selling Charas. The statements of
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
account were checked, and the money was transferred from the
account. FIR No. 217/2018 dated 15.09.2018 has been registered
against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act and is listed for
recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C on 14.07.2025. The petitioner is the brother of the
accused, Mintu. The petitioner and Mintu were dealing in
charas. The Charas was sent to SFSL, Junga and was confirmed
to be Cannabis after the analysis. Police conducted a financial
investigation and found that the Mintu had purchased the
vehicle, constructed a house and opened an account in which
huge money was deposited and withdrawn. Hence, the status
report.
3. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Thakur, and Mr. Panku,
learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Sen,
learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was
falsely implicated. There is no material against the petitioner
except the statement made by the co-accused-Harjit Singh,
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
which is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioner was arrested
on 12.05.2024 and has been in custody since then. He would
abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed
and that the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was
found as the supplier of the charas. He and his brother Mintu
have generated a huge amount from the sale/purchase of charas.
The financial investigation is being conducted on the bank
accounts of the petitioner and Mintu. Charas is affecting the
young generation adversely, and the offence involving the
charas should not be seen lightly; therefore, he prayed that the
present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC
768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at
page 783: –
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,
the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of
the accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if
the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004
SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of
U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16
SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed: –
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the
accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly
related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empowered
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for
the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a)
CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the
need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the
presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the
accused is not misused to impede the investigation,
overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.
The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses
the expression “any condition … otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several
decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is
empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any
condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of the
accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not
misused to impede the investigation, overawe the
witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several
decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the
conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in
the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis
supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC
570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the
Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and
observed in the following terms:–
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power
on a court of law to impose any condition that it
chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as
a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible
in the circumstance, and effective in the pragmatic sense,
and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of
the view that the present facts and circumstances of
the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to
be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into
consideration while deciding the bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to
grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail are the nature of
the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to
the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the
circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and
larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction
to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as
a recovery agent to realise the dues of the
complainant, and that too, without any trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. As per the status report, the police arrested Harjit
Singh, who disclosed during the investigation that the charas
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
was supplied to him by Jhabe Ram (the present petitioner). 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
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 also held
that the confession made by the co-accused is inadmissible
because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was observed
at page 568:-
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 officer. A confession that is made to a police officer
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 subject to the bar of
admissibility of a statement under Section 161 CrPC.
Therefore, even if a statement contains admission, the
statement being one under Section 161, it would
immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC.”
12. Similarly, it was held in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs
Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 (8) SCC
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
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 officer 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
co-accused implicating the petitioner.
13. 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 sufficient to deny bail to a person.
14. It was laid down by this Court in Saina Devi vs State of
Himachal Pradesh 2022 Law Suit (HP) 211 that where the police
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:-
“[16] In the facts of the instant case also the prosecution,
for implicating the petitioner, relies upon firstly the
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )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
coaccused Dabe Ram, this Court had considered the
existence of a prime facie case against the petitioner and
had rejected the bail application as not satisfying the
conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
[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.
15. 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
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
16. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in
custody based on a statement made by the co-accused, as the
same does not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence.
17. It was submitted that there was a huge financial
transaction in the account of the petitioner, which corroborates
the statements of the co-accused that the petitioner is dealing in
Charas. The statements made by the co-accused are
inadmissible, and once they are taken out of consideration, there
is no explanation for the financial transaction in the petitioner’s
account. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in Amal E vs
State of Kerala 2023:KER:39393 that financial transactions are not
sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of a
crime. It was observed:
“From the perusal of the case records, it can be seen that,
apart from the aforesaid transactions, there is nothing to
show the involvement of the petitioners. It is true that the
documents indicate the monetary transactions between
the petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the
question that arises is whether the said transactions were
in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish
the same, apart from the confession statements of the
accused, there is nothing. However, as it is an aspect to be
established during the trial, I do not intend to enter into
any finding at this stage, but the said aspect is sufficient
to record the satisfaction of the conditions contemplated
under section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the lack of such
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )materials evokes a reasonable doubt as to the
involvement of the petitioner.”
18. Therefore, there is insufficient material to connect
the petitioner with the commission of the crime.
19. It was submitted that the petitioner was involved in
the commission of a similar offence earlier, and he is likely to
commit the crime in case of his release on bail. This submission
is not acceptable. The petitioner cannot be detained in custody
merely because he was involved in the commission of the crime
earlier. The prosecution has to make out a prima facie case to
connect him with the commission of a crime, and he cannot be
detained simply because he was arrested earlier. Therefore, this
submission cannot help the prosecution.
20. It was submitted that the accused-Harjit Singh,
made a disclosure statement that he could show the place where
the Charas was sold to him by the petitioner, and a huge quantity
of charas was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement.
This statement can only be used against the accused, Harjit
Singh, and not against the petitioner.
21. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
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:
(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 and will not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
(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 concerned Police Station
and the 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.
22. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty
or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the
investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for
cancellation of the bail.
15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20631 )
23. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
24. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail
Solan, (H.P.), and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
25. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by
the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the
petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the
veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the
same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
1 July 2025
st
Judge
(Saurav pathania)
Digitally signed by
KARAN SINGH
GULERIA
Date: 2025.07.01
12:14:55 NPT