The absence of legally admissible evidence against the accused, particularly regarding organized crime, is crucial for granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J

All the petitions have been filed for seeking regular bail in the same FIR, hence, these are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment.

2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested in connection with FIR number 107 of 2024, dated 14^th August 2024, registered with Police Station Sadar Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioners are innocent, and they have nothing to do with the commission of a crime. They were arrayed as accused based on the financial transaction with the main accused. The police have completed the investigation, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petitions.

3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 13^th August 2024. Secret information was received on 14^th August 2024 at about 12:05 am that two persons staying in room number 101 of the Hotel Himachal, had a huge quantity of narcotics. The Police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory OfÏcer. The Police went to room number 101 with two independent persons. Suraj and Rohit Pandey were found in the room. The police searched the room and recovered one polythene packet containing 6.380 grams of heroin and a digital weighing machine. The Police seized the heroin and the Digital weighing machine. The police arrested the occupants of the room. Suraj and Rohit Pandey disclosed during the investigation that the heroin was made available to them by Sandeep Shah. Sandeep Shah used to send the location and direct them to keep the heroin in those locations. They would drop the heroin and send the location to Sandeep Shah via WhatsApp. The police checked the call detail records and the bank account statements. The police found that Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore and Aastik Chauhan were in contact with Rohit Pandey and Suraj. They had transferred a huge amount to Sandeep Shah’s bank account. Police arrested Jitender Verma, Jugal Kishore, Aastik Chauhan, Sandeep Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. The police found during the investigation that Sandeep Shah was dealing in narcotics. FIR number 108/2022 and FIR number 190/21 were registered against him. Many persons, including the present petitioners, had transferred the money to the accounts of Sandeep Shah, Arpita Shah, and Neeraj Kashyap. The petitioners are members of an organised crime syndicate which is involved in drug trafÏcking. The petitioner, Anshul Rana, had transferred Rs.6,57,300 to the account of Sandeep Shah, and an amount of Rs.1,62,000 was deposited in his account by various persons. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Anuj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Anshul Rana, Mr Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Prajwal Justa, Mr Ashwani Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner Aayan Chauhan, Mr M.S. Katoch Advocate for the petitioners Abhinav Verma and Sanjay Verma and Mr Lokender Kutlehria and Mr Jitender Sharma learned Additional Advocate General, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioners. The police are relying upon the statements made by the co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence. The financial transactions are also not sufÏcient to implicate the petitioners. The ingredients of Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) are not satisfied in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. He relied upon State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727, Muhammed Rashe