The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in its judgment dated 29 July 2025, granted regular bail to Mahesh Thakur in FIR No. 19 of 2025 registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) at Police Station New Shimla. The case involved allegations of heroin recovery and sale, where the petitioner was arrested alongside the co-accused Atul Bohra.
The petitioner argued that he was merely a visitor at the co-accused’s house and had no connection to the narcotics recovered from beneath a mattress in the premises. The defense claimed that Mahesh Thakur was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. Senior Advocate Mr. Peeyush Verma, representing the petitioner, submitted that no direct evidence linked his client to the recovered narcotics. The counsel referred to previous judgments, including Shubham Bitalu vs. State of H.P., to support the argument that a casual visitor cannot be held liable in such circumstances.
On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Mr. Jitender Sharma opposed the bail application, stating that the police had recovered heroin, ₹44,000 in cash, and a burnt ₹10 currency note used for drug consumption. It was also highlighted that the petitioner had a prior FIR against him and that both the accused had confessed to procuring heroin from a person named Gopi, who was yet to be traced.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while allowing the bail, emphasized that no material evidence connected the petitioner to the narcotics seized. The Court quoted the precedent set in Shubham Bitalu, stating:
“Mere presence in the house, without other evidence implicating them, or pointing out that they were regular visitors to the said house, would entitle the petitioners to a grant of bail, subject to the stringent conditions…”
Read Also:-Himachal Pradesh HC: Contractual Workers Deserve Regularization Despite Delay in Post Creation
The Court also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on confessional statements, referring to Supreme Court rulings such as Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer DRI, which held that statements made to the police or by co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him.
Conditions for Bail
The Court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the following conditions
The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.
Read Also:-Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ‘Bad Taste’ Video Case Involving PM, Army Remarks
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1706 of 2025
Date of Decision: 29.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with HC Vinod Kumar, No.959, IO PS New Shimla, present with police record.