Avishal Manhas vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge

The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 102/2026 dated 14.09.2026, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, under the provisions of Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

A perusal of the status report filed by the State is suggestive of the fact that on 14.09.2026, a police patrol headed by ASI Manvir Singh was on patrolling duty. At about 5:10 AM, when the police patrol was at Paprola Bazar, a secret information was received that two persons were coming from the Joginder Nagar side on a scooty bearing registration No. HP 37G 3170, carrying a huge quantity of contraband.

The Investigating Officer (IO) was also informed that three persons, who were travelling in a taxi bearing registration No. HP 01DA-1762 and two persons travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP 37J-1763 were providing logistic support by conducting reconnaissance for the carriers of the contraband.

Acting swiftly, the IO, ASI Manvir Singh, recorded the reasons of belief under Section 42(2) of the Act and transmitted the same through Constable Karan to the SDPO, Baijnath.

The rest of the police party proceeded towards Chaubin Chowk at Baijnath. One Saurabh Sood and Rajan Kumar were associated as independent witnesses. After having associated them, when the raiding party was near the railway crossing, Gankheter, a motorcycle was noticed coming from the Joginder Nagar side and was signalled to stop. The motorcycle bore registration No. HP 37J-1763. After some time, the taxi bearing registration No. HP 01DA-1762 also reached the spot. After about five minutes, the scooty also arrived at the spot. On seeing the police party, the scooty driver tried to turn back and flee from the place, but they were apprehended immediately by the police. The pillion rider of the scooty was carrying a transparent polythene.

In the presence of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer (IO) inquired about the names of the two persons sitting on the scooty. The driver disclosed his name as Akshit Sharma, while the pillion rider disclosed his name as Atul Kumar.

On checking the polythene packet carried by the pillion rider, Atul Kumar, a taped packet was found. On opening the tape, a pink carry bag inscribed with the word "Welcome" was recovered. Inside the carry bag, a black substance in the shape of sticks and balls was found. On the basis of experience and the disclosure of the accused, it was found to be charas. On weighing, it was found to be 1 kilogram and 813 grams.

On inquiry, the occupants of the motorcycle disclosed their names as Amit Kumar and Ashok Kumar Chauhan, while the occupants of the taxi disclosed their names as Ashwani, Ayush, and Akshay Kumar.

All seven accused persons, during the course of investigation, disclosed that they had gone to a place known as Daina Park on the directions of the present petitioner, Avishal Minhas and that he had handed over an amount of ₹1,46,000/-in cash to Atul Kumar. They had been informing the scooty riders about the movement of the police and the location of nakas. All seven accused persons came to be arrested at the spot and are presently in custody.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record meticulously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the commission of the offence, no contraband whatsoever was recovered from his conscious and exclusive possession, nor was he apprehended at the spot. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been sought to be implicated merely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accuseds, which is not admissible in law, there is no material connecting the petitioner with the recovery of the contraband and he is a local resident of the area with no risk of fleeing from justice.

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the Investigating Officer (IO), vehemently submitted that the investigation is at its inception and the linkages are still being verified by the prosecution. It was argued that the present petitioner is the kingpin running the entire show and as such, his custodial interrogation is necessary.

A perusal of the record reveals that although no disclosure statement has been formally recorded under Section 27 from the petitioner, entries in the case diary show that during the course of investigation, the co-accused disclosed to the Investigating Officer that on 13.09.2026, while they were sitting over drinks at the dump of the petitioner, Avishal, he asked the co-accused to go to Daina Park and fetch the contraband from one Sanju. He also provided the mobile number of the said Sanju being mobile No. 98163-15438 along with ₹1,46,000/- in cash. On his asking, co-accused Atul took his scooty along with the juvenile and the other co-accused joined them. They procured the charas from the said Sanju by paying the aforesaid amount.

The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the Investigating Officer (IO), further apprised the Court that the person from whom the contraband was purchased, namely Sanju, has not yet been traced.

Although, it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a contractor who was not involved in the commission of the offence in any manner, that one of the co-accused is his driver and that apart from that there is no material to remotely connect him with the other accused.

A perusal of the record shows that four of the persons are stated to be working with him, including his driver. During the course of investigation, they disclosed that the funds to purchase the charas were provided by the petitioner and that they had proceeded to Daina Park to purchase the same on his instructions from one Sanju.

Since the investigation is at a preliminary stage, the source of the contraband has not yet been verified. Co-accused Sanju is stated to be at large and his whereabouts are not traceable.

Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner was running a sort of cartel and was the kingpin of the gang; thus, custodial interrogation is necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Admittedly, the investigation is at its very inception. The forward and backward linkages have to be established. Taking note of the fact that the menace of drugs has seeped down to the rural villages, it is imperative to unravel the networks operating with impunity.

The record further reveals that there are certain loose ends for the prosecution to connect with the crime. Since the investigation is at a preliminary stage, it is necessary for the investigating agency to join the loose ends in order to unearth the truth and the modus operandi of the accused. In that sense, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears necessary, even though he may be entitled to seek regular bail subsequently.

Prima facie, at this stage, it does not appear that the petitioner has been named or implicated falsely. There is sufficient material on record indicating his complicity in the crime. The investigating agency must be afforded an opportunity to complete the investigation and connect the loose ends before filing the charge sheet.

This position of law has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24] and reiterated in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, [(2025) 4 SCC 493].

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Manchanda and Another v. State of Haryana and Another [(2023) 8 SCC 181], observed that while safeguarding individual rights during the grant of anticipatory bail, courts must balance individual liberty against public interest, the societal impact of the crime, and the imperative for an unhindered investigation. It is apposite to reproduce the relevant observations made therein:-

For all the reasons detailed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.