Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 24, 2025 To November 30, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

2 Dec 2025 3:59 PM IST

Mixing Of Contraband Pouches Before Sampling Creates Serious Doubt Accused's Possession: HP High Court

Case Name: Shrinjana Buddha v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 240

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a Nepali national who was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of opium. The Court held that the investigation was not proper as all pouches of the alleged contraband were mixed together before sampling, which made the procedure highly doubtful.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The Investigating Officer had mixed the contents of the backpack and had weighed them together. The samples were taken from the mixed contents of the backpack. The status report does not mention that the sample was representative and homogeneous. The packets were also not sent individually to determine whether they contained opium or not.”

Employee Can't Decide Location Of Anganwari Centre, Must Abide By Directions: HP High Court

Case Name: Lalita Devi v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 241

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the termination of an angwari worker who repeatedly disobeyed the departmental orders to shift the Anganwari Centre from her home to the local Mahila Mandal Bhawan.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that:“It was not for the petitioner to decide where to run the Anganwari Centre. As an employee, all that was required of her was to abide by the directions issued… and not to sit over the same and take her independent decisions contrary to the directions.”

Allegations Of Fraud Can't Be Decided Under SARFAESI Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: UCO Bank and another v/s Smt. Manjana Verma Sahni and another

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 242

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by UCO Bank, which challenged a trial court order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that: “This Court is of the considered view that the first relief which has been prayed for by the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can be granted under Section 17 of the 2002 Act and for the grant of that relief obviously the Fora is the Civil Court.”

Deceased Not Liable For Contributory Negligence For Not Having Driving License During Accident: HP High Court

Case Name: Madhu Joshi and another v/s Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 243

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even if the deceased did not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident, it does not make him liable for contributory negligence over the accident.

Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “In case, the deceased was not having the licence to drive the vehicle, he could be inflicted with some penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him.”

Amount Released From CM Relief Fund Was Unconditional; Cannot Be Deducted From Medical Reimbursement: HP High Court

Case Name: Pritam Marshal v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 244

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State can't deduct money granted under the Chief Minister's Relief Fund in 2012 from the petitioner's medical reimbursement claims.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:“An amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, released by the worthy Chief Minister out of his own Relief Fund, was not with any conditionthat the same was to be reimbursed or deducted later on upon the happening of any eventuality.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Police Official Allegedly Linked To Drug Supply Network

Case Name: Rahul Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (HP) 245

The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a police official accused of facilitating a narcotics supply network, holding that although no recovery was made from him, there was sufficient prima facie material linking him with the main supplier through money transfers, WhatsApp chats, mobile phone linkage and bank account operation.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The status report shows that there is sufficient material, at this stage, to prima facie connect the petitioner with Sandeep Shah… The police recovered a WhatsApp chat… Sandeep Shah had transferred money… The petitioner's mobile phone was linked to the account… The WhatsApp chat indicated that the petitioner was the person chatting with Sandeep Shah.”