Saksham Bhardwaj(Not Applicable) vs State of HP(Not Applicable) — CRMPM/528/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010179122026

Filing Number

CRMPM/2482/2026

Filing Date

02-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRMPM/528/2026

Registration Date

02-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Saksham Bhardwaj(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Narendra Guleria,Loveneesh singh Thakur,Loveneesh singh Thakur, ,Loveneesh singh Thakur

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of HP(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to Saksham Bhardwaj in an NDPS case, holding that confessional statements made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Since no contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession and the investigation was complete, the court found no justification for continued detention, imposing stringent bail conditions including a Rs. 1,00,000 bond with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMPM/528/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to Saksham Bhardwaj in an NDPS case, holding that confessional statements made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Since no contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession and the investigation was complete, the court found no justification for continued detention, imposing stringent bail conditions including a Rs. 1,00,000 bond with sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case