1

State Vs. Sumit.

CIS No: 6/2025

PW-1. Statement of Sh. Aniket Kumar S/o Sh Buddhi

Singh R/o Village Kiyari Tehsil Arki District
Solan, H.P.

On Oath
26.05.2025

Stated that I am a owner of Hotel in the name of Maa Tara

Anchal Cottage, Sankat Mochan village Badhai, Shimla. On
18.11.2024, at 1:40 PM I was in the reception of my Hotel. Smt
Manokamna who is the ward member of ward no 6 came to me
and she was accompanied by the police who gave their
identification to me and one of the member was Puneet. They
informed me that two out of state guests are staying in my
Hotel and that they have illicit substance in their possession. As
per my entry register copy of which is Ex.P1/PW1 those
persons were staying in room no 101 and I took them to that
room. The police knocked the room and two persons came out
who disclosed their name as Sukhvinder and Sumit. The police
informed them that they have information that they are in
possession of illicit substance and told them that they want to
search their room. The police also gave their own search to
those boys in my presence regarding which memo Ex. P2/PW1
was prepared which bears my signature in red circle-A. The
police searched the room in my presence and in the presence
of Manokamna and the police recovered a pithu bag from the
almirah. The pithu bag had three sections and it was black
coloured. In one section there was a pant and a hood. In
second section there was a t-shirt and in third section there
were three packets of transparent polythene which were
 2
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

knotted. Two packets contained a hard substance and in the

third packet there was white powder and the police identified
the substance as Heroin/chitta. Those two persons also
disclosed that the substance is Heroin. The police place the
heroin in the same packet and put a knot on the same. All the
three packets containing heroin was weighed on electronic
weighing machine which was in the bag of the IO. The weight
of the packets and the contraband in total was 25.280 grams of
Heroin. Thereafter, the three packets were put inside a cloth
parcel and sealed with eight seals of impression E. the police
also took into possession the bag containing the clothes. The
sample seals were obtained on a cloth Ex. P3/PW1 which
bears my signature in red circle-A. Seal after use was handed
over to me. The cloth parcel, pithu bag, sample seals and form
were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. P4/PW1
which bears my signature in red circle-A. Police also clicked
photographs of the spot and videography was done. Both the
accused are present in the court today who stayed in my Hotel
on that day and from whom the Heroin was recovered.
Photographs Mark A1 to Mark A15 were clicked at the spot.
One document was prepared by the police which was taken by
the police to PS West by one of the police man for registration
of FIR from where that policeman came with another policeman
and to that policeman the accused and the case property was
handed. Thereafter, both the accused were arrested.
At this state, ld.APP for the State has produced the case
property which is brought vide GD entry No. 33 dated
26.05.2025 of District malkhana Shimla.
 3
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

Ld.APP for the State has sought permission to open

and show the case property to the witness present in the
witness box. Permission is granted.
Ld. APP for the State has produced a cloth parcel
sealed with eight seals of impression E, two seals of ACJM-II,
three seals of FSL. All seals are found intact.
On showing parcel Ext.MO, witness has admitted his
signature in red circle A.
On cutting and opening the parcel Ext.MO, one
transparent packet containing Heroin Ex. MO1 came out.
Witness identify the substance being the same that was
recovered (the Ex. MO1 is the retained sample after inventory
proceedings).
XXXCross-examination by Sh. Abishekh Guleria
Advocate for the accusedXX

The police personnel who had come to my hotel were in

civil uniform and they were three in number. It is correct that I
have not brought the original visitor register of my Hotel. We
check the adhaar card of the visitors at the time of their
registration. It is correct that in Ex. P1/PW1 no adhaar no is
mentioned nor copy of adhaar card is annexed with Ex.
P1/PW1. It is correct that the time of entry is also not
mentioned in this document. The ward member Manokamna
was known to me. The police had obtained my signatures on
the documents probably at 4-5 places. Police had obtained my
signatures on one document prior to the search. Police
remained in my hotel till about 5-05:15 PM. We had entered
the room along with the police at about 01:50 PM. Some of the
 4
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

photographs on record are of outside the room. It is correct

that I can be seen signing the documents outside the room. I
do not remember whether I had signed Ex. P2/PW1 inside the
room or outside the room. No other room in my hotel was
booked on that day at that time. There are two staff members
in my hotel and they were also present there. Today I have not
seen those three packets which had been recovered. I have
not brought the seal today self stated that I have misplaced it
as I did not know its importance. My search was not taken by
the police. The police personnel who had gone to PS West had
left after about two hours from the time the search started. It is
incorrect that my signatures were obtained on all the
documents at the reception self stated that one document was
signed inside the room. The police themselves had shown me
their ID cards. It is incorrect that police had not come to my
hotel on that day. It is incorrect that the accused person had
not stayed in my hotel on the alleged day. It is incorrect that no
search of Room no 101 was conducted in my presence by the
police. It is incorrect that no contraband / Heroin was
recovered from inside a bag from room no 101 as alleged. It is
incorrect that I am deposing falsely on the asking of the police.
It is incorrect that later on made the entries in the visitor
register on the asking of the police.

RO&AC
(Yajuvender Singh)
Special Judge-II, Shimla, H.P.
 5
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

PW-2 Statement of Constable Arjun No. 489, posted

Special cell Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

On Oath
27.05.2025

Stated that since January 2024, I am posted as

Constable general duty in Special Cell Shimla. On 18.11.2024, I
along with ASI Susheel, ASI Hari Ram HC Narinder, HC Puneet
and C. Ajay departed from the office towards Boileauganj
Sankat Mochan Chakkar etc. for patrolling and detection of
crime in a private vehicle No HP-63A-1631 vide Rapat No 5 Ex.
P1/PW2. When at around 1 PM we were present at Sankat
Mochan. HC Puneet received secret information that two boys
from outer state are staying in room No 101 of a Hotel Maa
Tara Anchal Cottage BNB at Bhadai and they have come to sell
Heroin. HC Puneet wrote the reasons of information in report
Ex. P2/PW2 and handed it to me with the direction to take it to
the office of the supervisory officer/ DSP of PS West. I took the
report to the office of supervisory officer Sh. Manvinder Dy. SP
and handed the same to him at 02:30 PM. After that I returned
to the hotel where my statement was recorded by the IO of PS
West.
XXXCross-examination by Sh. Avishek Guleria
Advocate for the accusedXX

We went to Boileauganj, Sankat Mochan from Chakkar and we

had proceeded from Police station Central. We had not formed
any nakka at the above places. We had parked our vehicle at
Boileauganj for some time. HC. Puneet had received the secret
information telephonically. The report under section 42 of the
 6
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

NDPS Act was prepared at Sankat Mochan inside the vehicle. I

had taken a lift from that spot till old bus stand and then
proceeded on foot. I do not remember the number of the
vehicle in which I had taken lift. It is incorrect that IO had not
received any secret information. It is incorrect that I had not
taken any report under section 42 of NDPS Act to the office of
the supervisory officer. It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely
being an official witness.

RO&AC
(Yajuvender Singh)
Special Judge-II, Shimla, H.P.
7
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025
 8
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

PW-3 Statement of ASI Susheel Kumar IO at special

Cell Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

On Oath
27.05.2025

Stated that since 2024, I am posted as IO in Special

Cell Shimla. On 18.11.2024, I along with ASI Hari Ram HC
Narinder, HC Puneet, C. Ajay and C. Arjun departed from the
office towards Boileauganj, Sankat Mochan, Chakkar etc. for
patrolling and detection of crime in a private vehicle No HP-
63A-1631 vide Rapat No 5 Ex. P1/PW2. When at around 1 PM
we were present at Sankat Mochan. HC Puneet received
secret information that two boys from outer state are staying in
room No 101 of a Hotel Maa Tara Anchal Cottage BNB at
Bhadai and they have come to sell Heroin. HC Puneet wrote
the reasons of information in report Ex. P2/PW2 and handed it
to C. Arjun with the direction to take it to the office of the
supervisory officer/ DSP of PS West. Thereafter we proceeded
towards the above hotel and on the way the IO contcated the
ward member of Badhai named Manokamna and requested her
to come near mahila Mandal Bhawan Badhai. We met
manokamna near Mahila Mandal Bhawan and she joined us
and we apprised her about the secret information. Then we
reached Maa Tara Anchal Hotel where we met one Aniket the
owner of the hotel at the reception. The IO and the ward
member apprised him about the secret information and he was
also associated as a witness. We reached the room no 101 and
IO Puneet knocked the room and two persons came out who
disclosed their name as Sukhvinder and Sumit. The IO
 9
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

informed them that they have information that they are in

possession of illicit substance and told them that they want to
search their room. We also gave our own search to those boys
in the presence of witnesses regarding which memo Ex.
P2/PW1 was prepared which bears my signature in red circle-
B. We then searched the room in the presence of witnesses
and we recovered a pithu bag from the almirah kept in the top
shelf. The pithu bag had three sections and it was black
coloured. In one section there was a pant and a hood. In
second section there was a red coloured t-shirt and in third
section there were three packets of transparent polythene
which were knotted. Two packets contained a cream colour
hard substance and in the third packet there was white powder
and we had identified the substance as Heroin/chitta. Those
two persons also disclosed that the substance is Heroin. IO
placed the heroin in the same packet and put a knot on the
same. All the three packets containing heroin was weighed on
electronic weighing machine which was in the bag of the IO.
The weight of the packets and the contraband in total was
25.280 grams of Heroin. Thereafter, the three packets were put
inside a cloth parcel and sealed with eight seals of impression
E. The IO also took into possession the bag containing the
clothes. The sample seals were obtained on a cloth Ex.
P3/PW1. The IO filled up the relevant column of NCB forms
and form No 1. Seal after use was handed over to witness
Aniket. The cloth parcel, pithu bag, sample seals and form were
taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. P4/PW1. The
memo, cloth parcel and sample seal were signed by winesss
 10
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

and accused persons. C. Ajay clicked photographs of the spot

and videography was done. Photographs Mark A1 to Mark A15
were clicked at the spot. Both the accused are present in the
court today who were in the hotel on that day and from whom
the Heroin was recovered. IO prepared the rukka and sent it to
PS West through C. Ajay for registration of FIR. In the rukka the
IO had made a request to SHO to sent another IO. Second IO
Mahinder reached the spot at about 06:45 PM along with C.
Ajay and other police officials. IO handed over the accused and
cloth parcel, pithu bag and other documents to the second IO
through inventory memo. On the demarcation of the HC Puneet
second IO prepared spot map. Second IO recored our
statement at the spot.
At this state, ld.APP for the State has produced the case
property which is brought vide GD entry No. 18 dated
27.05.2025 of District malkhana Shimla.
Ld.APP for the State has sought permission to open
and show the case property to the witness present in the
witness box. Permission is granted.
Ld. APP for the State has produced a sealed cloth
parcel earlier opened in the court sealed with two court seals.
All seals are found intact.
On showing parcel Ext.MO, witness has identified the
same which was prepared at the spot by the IO in which three
plastic polythene containing Heroin were kept.
On cutting and opening the parcel Ext.MO, one
transparent packet containing Heroin Ex. MO1 came out.
Witness identify the substance being the same that was
 11
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

recovered (the Ex. MO1 is the retained sample after inventory

proceedings). Ex.MO2 is the same bag which was recovered
from the accused. Ex. MO3 is the pant Ex. MO4 is the T-shirt
and Ex. MO5 is the Hoody which were found in the bag Ex.
MO2.
XXXCross-examination by Sh. Avishek Guleria
Advocate for the accusedXX

We left the police station at 10 AM. We had not formed any

Nakka at Boileauganj Sankat Mochan and Chakkar. I do not
remember at what time we had reached Sankat Mochan. I do
not know that how the IO had received the secret information.
The information under section 42(2) was received at Sankat
Mochan by the IO. Badhai is at a distance of 300-400 meters
from Sankat Mochan. We only met the ward member at Sankat
mochan. The IO had informed those two boys (accused) about
the secret information received by the police. It is correct that
photograph of the almirah has not been clicked. The
documents were prepared inside the room self stated that
some tables were also placed outside the room where also the
documents were prepared. We were in civil uniform. We
remained at the spot till 8-9 PM. I do not know how C. Arjun
had left with the report under section 42 of NDPS Act. We had
not taken the personal search of any person in the hotel. We
had not informed the accused of their right of being searched
before a magistrate self stated that there was no requirement
to comply section 50 of the act. I do not remember that at what
time we had entered the room. I do not remember how many
persons from the hotel were present at the time of search self
 12
State Vs. Sumit.
CIS No: 6/2025

stated that we had associated Aniket. We were all searching

the room and the IO was leading us. It is correct that today I
have only seen one plastic packet containing the alleged
contraband. C. Ajay left with the rukka at about 04:25/04:30
PM. I do not know that how C. Ajay had left with the rukka. It is
incorrect that on 18.11.2024 we had not left for patrolling as
alleged. It is incorrect that no secret information was received
by the IO as alleged. It is incorrect that we had not searched
room no 101 of Hotel Maa Tara Anchal Cottage BNB as
alleged. It is incorrect that the accused persons were not
staying in room No 101 as alleged. It is incorrect that no
contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused
persons as alleged. It is incorrect that no seizure memo, NCB
form or other documents were prepared at the spot as alleged.
It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely being an official
witness.

RO&AC
(Yajuvender Singh)
Special Judge-II, Shimla, H.P.