Lovepreet Singh v. State of H.P.

Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr.Hitesh Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr.Divya Raj Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This application has been filed by the applicant for suspension of sentence awarded to him in sequel to his conviction vide judgment/order dated 3.12.2025, passed by State Waqf Tribunal, Exercising powers of Special Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Case (RBT) No. 74/2023/2021, titled as State of HP vs. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 Cr.M.P No. 188 of 2026 Lovepreet Singh & others, whereby the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) for having been found in possession of 36.62 grams Heroin/Chitta, an intermediate quantity of the contraband.

#2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there are contradictions and discrepancies in evidence regarding identification of the person who had allegedly thrown Chitta/Heroin from his pocket while being apprehended by the Police party.

#3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that PW-7 HHC Jagdev Singh, who was a member of the Police party, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that out of two persons who were nabbed by the Police, one person was wearing a white-colored T-Shirt who took out some packet from his pocket of his pant and tried to throw the same, whereas in photograph Ex. P-13/PW6, stated to be taken on spot, there is no person in white T-Shirt. There are two persons in the front, one of them is wearing a T-Shirt having blue, gray, and white stripes, whereas another person is wearing a blue T-Shirt, and persons sitting in the back are also not wearing white T-Shirt as one of them is in white shirt, whereas another 3 Cr.M.P No. 188 of 2026 is in pink T-Shirt. Therefore, it has been submitted that the prosecution story becomes doubtful, as there is no person in a white T-Shirt apprehended by the police, whose photographs were taken on the spot by the Police itself and have been placed on record.

#4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is 30 years of age and he has to look after his family comprising of old-aged parents, and he was the sole bread-earner of the family, and after his detention, his family is living in penury and family members are on the verge of starvation.

#5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was on bail during the trial and nothing adverse was found against him during such period and, therefore, there is no possibility of commission of offence or absconding by the applicant during suspension of sentence and thus, he deserves to be enlarged by suspending his sentence.

#6. It has also been submitted on behalf of applicant that imprisonment of 10 years is disproportionate to the alleged recovery of intermediate quantity recovered from him.

#7. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that in photograph Ex. P-13/PW6, there is a person sitting in back row wearing a white shirt who is applicant Lovepreet Singh. Referring photograph of the accused Lovepreet Singh in Form No. 27.2(1)/310, Ex. P-36/PW13, he has 4 Cr.M.P No. 188 of 2026 stated that the photo of Lovepreet Singh in this form is matching with the person sitting in back row wearing a white shirt. Therefore, it is apparent from these two documents that a white shirt was worn by Lovepreet Singh on the day of incident and the person in the photograph wearing white shirt is the applicant Lovepreet Singh.

#8. It has been further submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that in Ruka Ex. P-37/PW10, FIR Ex. P-38/PW11, and Search & Seizure Memo Ex. P-34/PW10, everywhere it has been written that person wearing ‘white shirt’ had thrown a packet, taking out the same from pocket of his pant and in these documents or anywhere else in record except in the statement of PW-7, nowhere it has been stated that the applicant was wearing a white T-Shirt.

#9. It has been further submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that in his statement PW-7 HHC Jagdev Singh, though, has stated that the person wearing T-Shirt had thrown the packet from his pocket, however, his statement in isolation cannot be taken into consideration to discredit the prosecution case because in documents everywhere, reference of white shirt is only there, but not of T-Shirt, and in photographs also, Lovepreet Singh has been found sitting wearing a white shirt.

#10. It has been further stated that in statement of PW-12 Naresh Pal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. P-42/PW12, it has come that person who threw packet from his pocket was wearing white shirt. 5 Cr.M.P No. 188 of 2026

#11. Referring aforesaid aforesaid evidence, learned Deputy Advocate General has stated that the applicant is not entitled for suspension of sentence for having been found in possession of intermediate quantity of heroin. It has been further stated that though age of the convict as well as family conditions may be taken into consideration, but at the same time, it is also apt to notice that drug menace has caused great harm to the society as well as Nation, and offenders under the NDPS Act cannot be enlarged by suspending sentence merely on the grounds that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of the family and his family is living in penury and is on the verge of starvation. These factors may be relevant in a particular case, however, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, these grounds are of no help to the applicant.

#12. As per the Custody Certificate, as on 18.3.2026, the applicant had undergone 4 months and 25 days of imprisonment, and as such, as on date, he has undergone about 9-10 months of imprisonment. The plea of the applicant that he was already on bail during pendency of the trial is also of no help to him, as now he is not an undertrial prisoner but a convict, and thus presumption of innocence is not in his favour and he has yet to serve a substantial quantum of his sentence.

#13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties, as well as other material on record, and taking into consideration 6 Cr.M.P No. 188 of 2026 that the Trial Court has elaborately discussed every aspect of the case, at this stage, we do not find any merit in the application.

#14. Any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding present application.

#15. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall not insist for production of certified copy of order, rather Trial Court shall verify passing of this order from the Web-page of the High Court. Accordingly the application is dismissed. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Ranjan Sharma), Judge. 22nd August, 2026 (Keshav)