STATE OF HP vs RAKESH KUMAR

2026:HHC:21238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2014
Reserved on: 18.04.2026
Date of decision: 03.06.2026
Uploaded on: 03.06.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Appellant.
Versus
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the appellant : Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
State has preferred this appeal against judgment dated
21.12.2013 passed by Special Judge-II, Solan, District Solan in
Sessions Trial No.12-S/7 of 2010 titled ‘State of Himachal
Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr.’ in case FIR No.03/2009 dated
09.10.2009 registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘ NDPS Act ’) in Police Station
State CID Bharari, Shimla, H.P., whereby the Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents of charge under Section 20 NDPS Act.

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
Yes
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-2- 2026:HHC:21238

2. According to prosecution case, 3.800 Kilogram Charas
High Court of H.P.
was recovered from respondents, when they were intercepted by the
police party near Ochhghat Bye-pass, Kumarhatti, on 09.10.2009 at
about 11:00 am on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-07-7088
being driven by respondent No.2-Balak Ram.
3. Prosecution case is that on 09.10.2009 at about 10:00
am, Sub Inspector/Additional SHO Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-15),
along with Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11), Constable Parkash
Chand (PW-3) and HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9), was interrogating
accused Rajesh Kumar in case FIR No.2 of 2009 dated 08.10.2009
registered under Section 20 NDPS Act in Police Station CID at CID
Unit, Solan. During interrogation, Rajesh Kumar disclosed that on
09.10.2009, two persons, namely Rakesh Kumar and Balak Ram,
were also coming to Solan on motorcycle bearing registration
No.HP-07-7088 for selling Charas .
4. The aforesaid information disclosed commission of
offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act, and therefore, a Written
Report under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was transmitted by Sub-
Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-15) to Superintendent of Police
(Crime Branch), Shimla, through Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3).
Thereafter, at about 10:15 am, Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-3- 2026:HHC:21238

(PW-15) along with Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11) and HHC
High Court of H.P.
Laiq Ram (PW-9), in an official vehicle bearing registration No.HP-
03-1426 being driven by Constable Sanjeev Kumar, proceeded
towards Nauni (Ochhghat) after handing over case file of FIR
No.2/2009 to Sub-Inspector Jagdish Chand. The police party
reached at Ochhghat, Kumarhatti by-pass, at about 11:00 am and
set up a Nakka there.
5. It is further case of the prosecution that at that time two
persons came on foot from Nauni side, namely Vikram Singh (PW-
1) and Pulkit Jain (PW-14). They, after being informed about the
information received, were associated as witnesses. At about 11:30
am, a motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-07-7088 coming from
Nauni side was stopped by Investigating Officer-Sub Inspector
Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-15). The rider of the motorcycle parked it
and ran away, however, pillion rider was apprehended by the police
party, who disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar with his address.
In presence of witnesses, respondent No.1-Rakesh Kumar, was
informed about his legal rights to be searched before a Magistrate or
a Gazetted Officer, who vide consent memo (Exhibit PW1/B)
consented for his search by the Police Party.
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-4- 2026:HHC:21238

6. A Pithu Bag, recovered from Rakesh Kumar, was
High Court of H.P.
opened, wherefrom 3.800 kg Charas was recovered. Recovered
Charas was put in polybag and polypacket and were placed in the
very Pithu Bag. Pithu Bag was packed in cloth parcel, which was
sealed with four seals of impression ‘Y’. NCB Form (Exhibit PW6/E)
was filled in triplicate. Facsimile of seal impression ‘Y’ was also taken
separately on piece of cloth (Exhibit PW1/E) after embossing the
same on the parcel. The case property along with motorcycle
bearing registration No.HP-07-7088 was taken into possession vide
memo (Exhibit PW1/D). Memos were signed by witnesses as well as
accused.
7. Rukka (Exhibit PW6/C) was prepared by I.O. (PW-15)
and was sent to Police Station CID Bharari, through HHC Liaq Ram
(PW-9). Site plan (Exhibit PW15/A) was prepared. Statements of
witnesses were recorded. Case property along with one copy of
seizure memo, NCB Form and Sample Seal was sent to Police
Station CID Bharari, through Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3).
8. After receiving Rukka in Police Station CID Bharari
through HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9), Inspector Lal Singh (PW-6)
registered the FIR in Police Station CID Bharari (PW6/B) and made
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-5- 2026:HHC:21238

endorsement (Exhibit PW6/A) on Rukka to this respect and case file
High Court of H.P.
was sent through HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) to the spot.
9. Recovered contraband was sent to Police Station CID
Bharari, Shimla, through Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3), who
produced the same at the Police Station at 9:30 pm. Inspector Lal
Singh (PW-6) resealed the parcel with four seals of impression ‘C’
and filled relevant column of NCB Form and prepared reseal memo
(Exhibit PW6/D). Facsimile of seal impression ‘C’ was taken on NCB
Form (Exhibit PW6/E). Sample seal was separately taken as Exhibit
PW6/F.
10. Recovered contraband was sent to State Forensic
Science Laboratory through HC Devender Verma (PW-5) vide RC
No.2/9 on 12.10.2009.
11. After receiving FSL report (Exhibit PX) and completion
of investigation, Challan was prepared and presented in the Court
by S.I. Rattan Singh (PW-10).
12. Finding a, prima facie, case against the respondents,
Charge under Section 20 of NDPS Act, was framed against the
respondents.
13. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 16
witnesses. After recording statement under Section 313 of Criminal
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-6- 2026:HHC:21238

Procedure Code, 1973 (‘ Cr.P.C. ’), respondents have examined
High Court of H.P.
Harinder Kanwar (DW-1) and Bharat Ram (DW-2) to substantiate the
plea of innocence of the accused.
14. On appreciation of the evidence on record, Trial Court
has acquitted the respondents.
15. As per Rukka, FIR, NCB Form, Seizure Memo etc.
recovered contraband was 3.800 kg of Charas . However, weight of
Charas in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, as mentioned in
SFSL report, was found to be 3.500 kg. There was difference of 300
grams, which is not a small quantity. Therefore, it is difficult to
consider that State FSL report pertains to 3.800 kg Charas, alleged
to be recovered from the respondents.
16. As per Investigating Officer-Sub-Inspector Minakshi
Bhardwaj (PW-15), on 09.10.2009 at about 10:00 am, Rajesh
accused in FIR No.02/2009 was interrogated in presence of Sub-
Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11), HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) and
Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3) and during that interrogation,
Rajesh Kumar disclosed about two persons bringing Charas to
Solan.
17. In contrast, Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3) has
stated that he did not remember as to how many persons were
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-7- 2026:HHC:21238

present in CID office, Solan, when the reasons to believe were
High Court of H.P.
allegedly given to the witness by Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj
(PW-15) with further statement that on 09.10.2009, he came from
Shimla alone to Solan, as he was telephonically told by
Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), Shimla, on the very same
day, i.e. 09.10.2009 at about 7:00 am, to go to Solan and he started
from Sanjauli and reached at Solan at 9:00 am by travelling in a bus.
18. According to HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9), on 09.10.2009, he
(Laiq Ram) along with Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3) and Sub-
Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11) came to Solan together in a Bus, as
they were asked to come to Solan by Superintendent of Police,
Crime Office, and they reached Solan at 7:30 am. According to him
at Nauni Nakka, they parked their vehicle, i.e. Maruti Car, on the right
side of the road, and it was their official vehicle.
19. According to Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11), he
came from Shimla alone in a private bus and reached Solan at about
8:00 am and Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3) was already present
there and perhaps HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) was also present. Apart
from CIB officials, no other person was present there.
20. According to Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-
15), HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) reached at Solan at 7:30 am, thereafter,
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-8- 2026:HHC:21238

Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3) came and Sub-Inspector Keshav
High Court of H.P.
Negi (PW-11) reached at about 8:00 am.
21. The difference in the timing, mode of vehicle used for
coming from Shimla to Solan and discrepancy with regard to their
presence in the CID Unit, Solan, is irreconcilable. According to HHC
Laiq Ram (PW-9), all three of them, i.e. Constable Parkash Chand
(PW-3), HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) and Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi
(PW-11), came together in a bus. Whereas, according to Constable
Parkash Chand (PW-3) and Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11),
they came alone in bus. According to Constable Parkash Chand
(PW-3), he reached in CBI Office at 9:00 am, whereas Sub-Inspector
Keshav Negi (PW-11) found him in Solan at 8:00 am. According to
HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9), they reached at Solan at 7:30 am.
22. According to prosecution, after recording reasons to
believe under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act, Constable Parkash Chand
(PW-3) was sent to Shimla at 10:15 am to deliver the same in the
Police Station CID, Shimla. Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-
15) has stated that she along with HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) and Sub-
Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11) left the spot in an official vehicle
along with Constable Sanjeev Kumar, with further statement that the
vehicle was official vehicle Maruti 800 car, but according to Sub-
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-9- 2026:HHC:21238

Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11), the vehicle used by the police party
High Court of H.P.
was official vehicle Gypsy, whereas HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) stated
that it was official vehicle Maruti 800 car. There is considerable
difference between Maruti 800 car and Gypsy, and police witnesses
are not rustic, but are well-versed with the models of the vehicles,
especially with regard to difference between a Maruti 800 car and a
Gypsy.
23. According to Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-
15), Rukka was sent at about 2:00 pm through HHC Laiq Ram (PW-
9) to Shimla. According to HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9), he left the place
at 2:10 pm by taking lift on motorcycle up to Solan, and thereafter
Solan to Shimla by bus, whereas according to Sub-Inspector Keshav
Negi (PW-11), apart from Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3), no
other police official left the spot and they had left the spot at 5:00 pm
and Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3) reached at Ochhghat at 4:30
pm.
24. It is also a material contradiction regarding the departure
of HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) and Constable Parkash Chand (PW-3)
from the spot. According to Laiq Ram (PW-9), he left Nauni at about
02:00 pm or 02:10 pm, but according to PW-11 Keshav Negi, except
Prakash (PW-3), none else left the spot before 05:00 pm, meaning
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-10- 2026:HHC:21238

thereby that HHC Laiq Ram (PW-9) left the spot after 05:00 pm. Such
High Court of H.P.
considerable difference with respect to time of departure of Laiq Ram
(PW-9) from spot is not an insignificant fact.
25. Independent witnesses, PW-1 Vikram Singh and PW-14
Pulkit Jain have not supported the prosecution case and were
declared hostile on request of learned Public Prosecutor for resiling
from their earlier statements recorded by the police under Section
161 Cr.P.C. In detailed cross-examination, nothing material could be
elucidated in favour of the prosecution. Both of them have admitted
signature on the documents, however, they have categorically
denied recovery of any Charas in their presence as claimed by the
prosecution. PW-1 Vikram Singh has stated that he had signed the
memos in the basement of the building in which Office of CID is
functioning. He had also stated that he was well-versed with the
police officials, as he had been driver of private vehicle of
Superintendent of Police-Prem Thakur. This witness, despite having
acquaintance with the police, but not acquaintance with the

respondents, has not supported the prosecution case.
26. PW-14 Pulkit Jain, has also stated that he had put his
signature on the already-written documents, on the request of the
police with information that they had recovered some material and
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-11- 2026:HHC:21238

his signatures were obtained at Kotla Nala in a Dhaba, but not at
High Court of H.P.
Ochhghat near Kumarhatti bye-pass.
27. According to prosecution case, the place where
motorcycle was intercepted was a secluded place, but HHC Laiq
Ram (PW-9) in his statement has stated that a petrol pump and other
shops as well as residential houses, were existing at the spot,
whereas Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11) has stated that no
shop was there, but there were two Khokas on the spot, which were
closed at that time, and he has expressed ignorance about existence
of 20-25 shops at Ochhghat, along with one bank. He has also
expressed ignorance about the path leading to Narag from Ochhghat
Chowk.
28. According to Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-
15), there were two shops on the spot, but their shutters were down
and there was no petrol pump near the spot at that time. There is
difference between shops with shutter and Khokhas/Kiosk. There is
also discrepancy with respect to existence of petrol pump near the
spot. Petrol pump is not a small shop or Khokha, existence or non-
existence of which could not have been noticed by the Police
witnesses. According to one official witness, there was a petrol pump
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-12- 2026:HHC:21238

in existence, whereas others have said that there was no petrol
High Court of H.P.
pump on the spot.
29. According to Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj (PW-
15), they went to Ochhghat in the vehicle being driven by Constable
Sanjeev Kumar, whereas other witnesses, i.e. HHC Laiq Ram (PW-
9) and Sub-Inspector Keshav Negi (PW-11), are silent in this regard.
Rather, they have stated that three of them went to the police station
and thereafter proceeded to reach Ochhghat. Therefore, on this fact
also, there is a major discrepancy.
30. As per prosecution story, independent witnesses were
associated before arrival of the respondents on motorcycle on the
spot. Whereas from statement of Sub-Inspector Minakshi Bhardwaj
(PW-15), it appears that they had come on the spot when an accused
was being searched by the police officials.
31. The aforesaid material contradictions and discrepancies
create doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. It creates
doubt about the receipt of information during investigation of another
FIR No.02/2009, as all four official witnesses have given different
version regarding presence of police officials at the time of such
alleged interrogation on 09.10.2009. There is also cloud over the
prosecution story with respect to leaving the spot in Maruti or Gypsy
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-13- 2026:HHC:21238

car, laying Naka at Ochhghat and detention of respondent No.1-
High Court of H.P.
Rakesh Kumar on the spot in presence of independent witnesses.
32. There is also considerable difference between the
quantum of the contraband, as recovered contraband was 3.800
kilogram, whereas in the FSL, it was found 3.500 kg. It is also apt to
record that there is not a considerable time gap between the
recovery of contraband and sending the same to the FSL. Therefore,
difference of 300 grams of Charas, a significant quantity, creates
doubt about veracity of the prosecution story.
33. Respondents have advantage of being acquitted by the
Trial Court, fortifying the presumption of innocence in their favour.
Considering above-referred contradictions and discrepancies in
evidence on record, learned Deputy Advocate General has also not
been able to point out any ground warranting interference in the
judgement of acquittal.
34. The State has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt by leading no cogent, reliable and convincing
evidence.
35. In view of above discussion, this appeal is dismissed.
Bail and surety bonds furnished by and on behalf of respondents are
::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS

-14- 2026:HHC:21238

discharged. Record be sent back. Pending miscellaneous
High Court of H.P.
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge



(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
rd
3 June, 2026
(Pardeep)

::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2026 15:36:59 :::CIS