Himachal Pradesh High Court
Muntjir Ahmad vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 1683 of 2025
Reserved on: 5.8.2025
Date of Decision: 12.8.2025.
Muntjir Ahmad ...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. Anubhav Chopra,
Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 140 of 2025, dated 21.6.2025,
registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.,
for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22
and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(in short ‘the ND&PS Act‘).
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent
and he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement
made by the co-accused. No recovery was effected from the
petitioner. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and no role
was assigned to him in the initial complaint. The petitioner is a
law-abiding citizen, and he has no criminal record. He would
abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose.
Hence the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on
20.6.2025 when they received a secret information at about 6.10
PM that Munshi Ram, Geeta Ram, Narinder Kumar and Govind
Ram were dealing in intoxicating capsules. They had gone to
Uttarakhand/Uttar Pradesh to purchase the capsules. A huge
quantity of capsules could be recovered from their search. The
information was credible. It was reduced to writing and sent to
the office of the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Paonta
Sahib. The police associated Narinder Kumar and Ranjan. Two
motorcycles bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 and HP 17G-
6252 came from Kulhal. The motorcycle bearing registration No.
HP-17G-7947 sped towards Paonta, whereas the motorcycle
3
bearing registration No. HP-17G-6252 was stopped. The driver
revealed his name as Narinder Kumar, and the pillion rider
revealed his name as Govind Ram. The police searched the bag
being carried by Narinder Kumar and found a polythene packet
containing 2386 anti-spasmodic capsules and 596 tablets of
Alprazolam. The total weight of the capsules was found to be
1.374 kgs, and the total weight of Alprazolam tablets was found
to be 0.112 grams. The documents were demanded for
possessing the capsules and the tablets, but no document was
produced. The police seized the capsules and the tablets.
Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-17G-7947 was detained
by the police at the Police Station, Puruwala. Munshi Ram and
Geeta Ram were riding the motorcycle. They revealed during the
interrogation that they had purchased the capsules and the
tablets for ₹16,000/-. Narinder Kumar made a disclosure
statement under Section 23(a) of Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam
(BSA) that he could point out the place where the capsules and
tablets were purchased by him from Muntzir Ahmad (present
petitioner). He led the police party to the place. He also
identified the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner on
24.6.2025. The petitioner revealed during the interrogation that
4
he had purchased the capsules and the tablets from Bhura;
however, the petitioner was unable to identify Bhura. The
capsules and tablets were sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL), and as per the report of analysis, the capsules
were samples of Tramadol and the tablets were samples of
Alprazolam. The call detail record showed that the petitioner
had talked to Munshi Ram eight times. The location of Munshi
Ram and the petitioner was found to be at the same place on
20.6.2025 at 3.44 PM to 4.12 PM. The petitioner is a resident of a
different State, and he would intimidate the witnesses in case of
his release on bail. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned
Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was
falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-
accused. The statement made by the co-accused is not
admissible in evidence. The call detail record is not sufficient to
connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The
5
petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the
Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be
allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner
was found in touch with the co-accused Munshi Ram. Their call
detail records show that they were present at the same place,
which corroborates the statement of the co-accused. The co-
accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the
capsules, and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to
the present case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition
be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. 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 at page
783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,
6the 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] .]
9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:
“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
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
7need 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)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into
8consideration 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)
10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. The status report shows that the petitioner was
named by Narinder Kumar and Munshi Ram. It is undisputed
that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. It was held in
9
Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer 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 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 v. State of
H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1627 that where the police have no
material except the call details record and the disclosure
10
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
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 NDPS Act.
17. Since, the existence of CDR details of accused
person(s) has not been considered as a circumstance
sufficient to hold 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 v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.
Further, on the basis of the aforesaid elucidation
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
11
on 06.10.2023 and Relu Ram vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No. 1061 of
2023, decided on 15.05.2023.
16. It was submitted that the location of the petitioner
and the co-accused Munshi Ram was found to be the same as
per the call detail record. The mere fact that their location was
found to be the same does not lead to an inference that the
petitioner had sold the capsules and the tablets to Munshi Ram.
Once the statements of the co-accused Narinder Kumar and
Munshi Ram that the accused had sold the capsules and the
tablets to them are taken out of consideration, there is nothing
to infer that the same location was to sell/purchase the capsules
and the tablets. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in
custody because his location was found to be the same as that of
Munshi Ram.
17. It was submitted that the accused was found in
possession of a commercial quantity of the capsules and the
rigours of Section 37 of ND&PS apply to the present case. This
submission will not help the prosecution. It was for the State to
connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and if
there is nothing to connect him with the commission of the
12
crime, he cannot be detained in custody because one of the co-
accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the
capsules.
18. Therefore, there is prima facie insufficient material to
connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and
the petitioner cannot be detained in custody.
19. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the
petitioner will abide by the following terms and 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 on each and
every hearing 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
SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and
the Trial 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
13the 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.
20. 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.
21. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Central Model
Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by
FASTER.
22. The observations made here-in-above are regarding
the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the case’s merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
12th August 2025
(Chander)
Digitally signed
by CHANDER
SHEKHAR
CHANDER Date:
SHEKHAR 2025.08.12
13:45:37
+0530