Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ajay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 194 of 2025
Decided on : 04-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Niyati Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Deep Kumar, IO PS Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.

Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25, and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for alleged involvement in drug trafficking based on financial transactions and co-accused statements - Insufficient evidence to connect petitioner to crime - Court emphasized that mere financial transactions do not establish guilt. (Paras 1, 15, 17)

(B) Bail considerations - Courts must assess nature of accusations, role of accused, and potential for evidence tampering - Statements of co-accused are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under F.I.R. No. 162 of 2024 for drug-related offences, claiming innocence and lack of evidence linking him to the crime, with only a financial transaction of ₹27,000/- cited against him. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime, allowing bail on specified conditions. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence to deny bail. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that financial transactions alone do not establish guilt, and statements made by co-accused are inadmissible unless supported by other evidence. (Paras 10, 15)

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail. (Para 19)

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims innocence (Para 4)
2. state argues sufficient material (Para 5)
3. consideration of bail parameters (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. financial transactions insufficient (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. petitioner granted bail (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 162 of 2024, dated 25.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable underSections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty. The petitioner has no nexus with the contraband. He has been implicated based on a financial transaction of Rs. 27,000/- The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 25.10.2024. They stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 97A-0842 and recovered 6.058 kg of charas from it. They arrested driver Arjun Singh and occupant Vipin Kumar. The police interrogated them, and Arjun Singh revealed during the interrogation that he had purchased Charas from Maheshwar Singh for Rs. 2,50,000/-. Vipin Kumar revealed during the interrogation that Arjun Singh had promised to pay Rs.5,000/- to him. The police interrogated the petitioner, and the petitioner revealed that he was working in the shop of Shubhkaran. Shubhkaran was arrested in a case of charas. Arjun Singh started looking after the shop. Arjun Singh asked the petitioner to transfer the money to various persons as the accounts of Shubhkaran were seized by the police. The petitioner had transferred Rs.27,000/- to Maheshwar Singh’s account. The police arrested the petitioner. Subsequently, police also arrested Maheshwar Singh, who revealed during the inquiry that he had sold 06 kg of charas to Arjun Singh through Somdev. The police recovered the bank details of Maheshwar Singh and found that some vouchers mentioned the name of the petitioner. The report of analysis confirmed the substance to be charas; hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Niyati Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime except the statement made by the co-accused and the transfer of the money. These are insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the custody of the petitioner is not required; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Ms. Niyati Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the statement of the co- accused is duly corroborated by the financial transaction, therefore there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The police had recovered a commercial quantity of charas and the petitioner had not satisfied the rigours laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; hence, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271 , wherein it was observed as under: -

“19. Courts, while granting bail, are required to consider