The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to suspend Dinesh Kumar’s sentence in an NDPS case, finding no fair chance of acquittal on the grounds raised by him at this stage.
The plea was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma. The defence argued that the police had prior information and failed to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, relying on the phrase “Khufia Suragh Barari” in the police record.
The Court, however, held that “Khufia Suragh Barari” did not amount to specific prior information requiring compliance with Section 42 and rejected the plea for suspension of sentence.
Dinesh Kumar had sought suspension of his sentence, including the fine imposed following his conviction by the Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. The case arose from FIR No. 12 of 2023 registered at Police Station Brow, District Kullu, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
His counsel argued that the police had prior information before conducting the search and therefore were required to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The defence also questioned the handling and resealing of the seized material, pointed to a blank column in the NCB form, and relied on the fact that an independent witness had turned hostile.
The High Court found that the argument that ‘Khufia Suragh Barari’ amounted to specific prior information was misconceived.
The Bench explained that the expression refers to an effort to investigate, track or obtain a clue regarding possible narcotics-related activity. According to the Court, specific information identifying persons, the contraband, the vehicle and the likely route or timing would constitute the kind of prior information attracting Section 42.
The Court also considered the objections concerning the seized material. It noted that the case property had been handed over to the second investigating officer, who produced it before the SHO for resealing. The Court found that the issue regarding the blank column in the NCB form was debatable in these circumstances.
"Though PW-5 Smt. Utra Devi has been declared hostile, however in her examination-in-chief she has corroborated the presence of Police, accused as well as her presence on 22.2.2023 at 7:00 P.M. on the spot."
The Bench further noted that the relevant general diary entries recorded the subsequent handling of the case property, including resealing, proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and its dispatch to the State Forensic Laboratory.
The High Court held that the hostility of the independent witness did not, by itself, destroy the prosecution case, particularly where the Court found reliable evidence from police officials. It also noted that no enmity between the police party and the applicant had been established.
The Bench concluded that there was no fair chance of acquittal on the grounds raised by the applicant at this stage. It therefore declined to suspend the sentence and dismissed the application.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v. State of H.P.
Case Number: Cr.MP No. 2782 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 2025
Judge: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma
Decision Date: August 11, 2026
