HP High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Policeman in Drug Syndicate Case, Citing Need for Custodial Interrogation

Shimla, HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition of a police official, Rahul Verma, implicated in a significant drug trafficking case. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, in a detailed judgment, underscored that the need for custodial interrogation to unearth a larger conspiracy outweighs the petitioner's claims, even when the initial link is a co-accused's statement.

The court held that the principles laid down in the landmark Tofan Singh judgment, which deems statements made to NDPS officers inadmissible as confessions, cannot be a blanket ground for granting anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is at a nascent stage.

Background of the Case

The case unfolded after police, acting on a tip-off on August 14, 2024, arrested two individuals, Suraj and Rohit Pandey, from a Shimla hotel with 6.380 grams of heroin. Their interrogation led investigators to the alleged main supplier, Sandeep Shah. As the probe deepened, Shah disclosed the involvement of several police officials in the drug syndicate, naming the petitioner, Rahul Verma.

The investigation uncovered a web of financial transactions and digital communications allegedly linking Verma to Shah. The prosecution alleged that Verma was providing sensitive information about police activities to the drug syndicate in exchange for money.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Stance: Senior Counsel Rajiv Jiwan, representing Rahul Verma, argued that his client, a government servant with a clean record, was falsely implicated. The core of his argument was that the case against Verma was built solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, Sandeep Shah, which is inadmissible in evidence as per the Supreme Court's ruling in * Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu *. He further contended that no recovery was made from Verma and that his custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Prosecution's Counter-Arguments: Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen vehemently opposed the bail plea. He submitted that the police had gathered substantial prima facie evidence beyond the co-accused's statement, including: - WhatsApp chats between Shah and a number allegedly used by Verma, discussing police movements and a job transfer that coincided with Verma's actual transfer date. - Financial transactions where Shah deposited over ₹86,000 into an account of Verma's father, which Verma was authorized to operate and had his mobile number linked to. - Evidence that Verma had formatted his mobile phone after the arrest of another accused, suggesting an attempt to destroy evidence.

The prosecution stressed that custodial interrogation was crucial to recover the mobile handset used for the chats, identify other police officials involved, and unravel the full extent of the criminal conspiracy.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Kainthla conducted a thorough analysis of the law on pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that it is an "extraordinary power" to be exercised sparingly. The court navigated the petitioner's reliance on the Tofan Singh judgment by citing subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

The judgment noted that in cases like State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar , the Supreme Court had clarified that the Tofan Singh precedent could be argued during a regular bail hearing or trial, but not necessarily to secure pre-arrest bail when the investigation is ongoing.

> "To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents," the court quoted from the Samarth Kumar judgment.

The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient material to establish a prima facie connection between the petitioner and the main accused.

> "The status report shows that there is sufficient material, at this stage, to prima facie connect the petitioner with Sandeep Shah... All these circumstances justify the investigation of the petitioner’s role in the supply of heroin."

Reinforcing the need for custodial interrogation, the court cited the Supreme Court's observation in * State Versus Anil Sharma *:

> "Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order... Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order."

The Verdict

Concluding that the gravity of the offence and the initial stage of the investigation warranted custodial interrogation, the High Court dismissed Rahul Verma's petition. The court found it was not a fit case to exercise its extraordinary discretion to grant pre-arrest bail. The observations made in the order are confined to the disposal of the bail petition and will not influence the merits of the case during trial.