Bail is granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, especially if no contraband is found in possession of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail. The same arises out of FIR No.51 of 2024, dated 16.12.2024, registered at Police Station Deha, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the status report. Copy whereof, has also been supplied to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The incident, in the case at hand, is dated 16.12.2024. On the said date, Police party departed from Police Station Deha for patrolling and checking drug menace in Balag and Naina area. At about 8:15 AM, the Police party reached Balag Nala. At that particular point of time there was a white coloured car (Alto K-10) bearing registration No.HP-10-1414 parked therefacing towards Sainj. There were three occupants in the same. The police party questioned the occupants of the vehicle qua it having been parked in an isolated location. No satisfactory response was forthcoming.

4. Besides the aforesaid, the car had a foul smell. The same created a suspicion qua the vehicle carrying some objectionable article. The driver of the car disclosed his name as Ankush son of Sh. Roshan Lal, r/o Village Rantari PO Dharara Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, HP. The person seating adjacent to driver’s seat disclosed his name as Rishabh Negi s/o Sh. Upkar Singh, r/o near Polytechnical College Rohru and person sitting on the rear seat disclosed his name as Lucky Thakur s/o late Sh. Veer Pal, r/o Village Parsa, PO Lower-Koti, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, HP.

5. On searching the vehicle, one foil paper was recovered under the foot mat of the co-driver’s seat. The foil contained 10.23 grams of heroin. The owner of the car is Risabh Negi.

6. During the investigation, financial transaction amounting to Rs.24,940/- inter se the present bail petitioner and the accused-Ankush Kumar was found.

7. The bail petitioner, in the case at hand, was arrested on 10.01.2025. Since then, he is in custody. Presently in judicial custody. Challan, in the case at hand, stands filed on 13.02.2025. Presently the matter is listed for service of the accused.

8. A financial transaction inter se individuals can be compelling circumstantial evidence, when it demonstrates a clear connection between the accused and the alleged criminal activity. However, such evidence must be corroborated with other forms of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, no contraband has been discovered in the possession of the bail petitioner. The onus is on the prosecution to establish a direct and persuasive nexus between the bail petitioner and the purported offence in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence.

9. In the status report, it has been pointed out that there are two other cases pending against the present bail petitioner. In one case, it is alleged that the bail petitioner along with four other accused, were in conscious possession of 2.5 grams of chitta (heroin). The said case is stated to be listed for recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the other case, the bail petitioner has been inculpated on account of alleged financial transactions with the main accused in the said case. In the latter case, it is alleged that the challan has been presented. In both the cases, the bail petitioner has been enlarged on bail. In both the cases his guilt is yet to be ascertained at the trial.

10. At the time of deciding the bail petition, a detailed discussion of evidence so collected and produced by the prosecution, is to be avoided, as it may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the accused/applicant.

11. Trial is going to take time for its conclusion. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. Further detention of the accused would not serve any fruitful purpose, rather would p