Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 181 and 182 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Piyush Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lalit K. Sehgar, Advocate, in both the petitions.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General in both the petitions with Dy. SP K.D. Sharma, SDPO, Manali with Ct. Pritam Singh No. 199, O/o SDPO, Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

Bail cannot be denied without prima facie evidence; reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements is insufficient for detention.

Headnote:
(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2) and 105 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 181 - Bail application - Petitioners accused of supplying heroin to deceased; no recovery made; reliance on co-accused's statement deemed inadmissible - Court emphasized necessity of prima facie evidence for bail consideration. (Paras 1, 15, 21)

(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider nature of accusation, role of accused, risk of tampering with evidence, and likelihood of absconding - Mere transfer of money insufficient to establish involvement in drug offences. (Paras 7, 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought bail for alleged involvement in supplying heroin leading to the death of the deceased; no direct evidence or recovery from petitioners.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners not found in possession of heroin; no admissible evidence linking them to the crime.

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be detained based solely on co-accused's statement and absence of direct evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that without prima facie evidence, the petitioners cannot be denied bail; reliance on inadmissible statements cannot justify detention.

Result: Petitions allowed; petitioners granted bail with conditions.

Table of Content
1. opposition to bail based on evidence (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. consideration of bail parameters (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. bail granted with conditions (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail in FIR no. 139 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024 registered with Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 238, 239, 61(2) and 105 ofBhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 27, 20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act . It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioners had sold heroin to deceased Ms. Precilia Chenaux and her friend Nishant Thakur on 07.08.2024. The deceased died due to the heroin overdose. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The petitioner-Rajesh Kumar is engaged in the business of Tour and Travel and has two commercial vehicles. These vehicles are hired by the tourists and local persons and the payment is made in cash or through UPI. The police arrested the petitioner based on the statement made by one of the co-accused. The police have completed the investigation and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. The petitioners have roots in the society and would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. They would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.

2. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the informant made a report to the police that deceased Precilia and Nishant Thakur went to Manali on 07.08.2024. She could not be contacted. The police registered a missing report and conducted an investigation. It was found during the investigation that Precilia and Nishant had stayed in Room No. 202 of Black Magic Hotel, Shanag. Precilia consumed heroin and died due to the heroin overdose. Her dead body was thrown in the Beas River by Nishant and Archit Sharma. Subsequently, the dead body of Precilia was recovered. The involvement of Ajay Kumar and Ankit Sharma was also found in the commission of crime. They were arrested and were subsequently released on bail. As per the report of analysis, various drugs i.e. Tapentadol, Ketamine, Tramadol, Dextromethorphan, Codeine, Diazepam, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Norhydrocodone and Cannabinoids were found in the blood of the deceased. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the death occurred due to pulmonary oedema caused by the cumulative effect of multiple intoxicating substances found in the blood of the deceased. The accused-Nishant Thakur revealed on inquiry that Precilia had purchased heroin from one man and woman sitting in a vehicle for Rs. 4,000/-. This amount was transferred through UPI. The account details were ascertained and it was found that the accounts belonged to the petitioners. They had supplied heroin to Precilia on different dates; hence, they were arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner-Rajesh revealed on inquiry that he had purchased heroin from Sukhwinder. He used to sell the heroin to various persons in Manali. The account number of Sukhwinder was also ascertained. It was found that an amount of Rs.27,67,879/- was received by petitioner Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 01.01.2024 till 31.12.2024 and he had transferred Rs.27,10,575/- to various persons. Petitioner Sunita Bodh received Rs.15,53,410/- between 01.03.2024 and 12.08.2024 and transferred Rs.13,64,994/- to various persons. The petitioners were aware of the fact that the heroin could cause death; hence, an offence punishable under Section 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was added. The petitioners are drug peddlers who are selling heroin to various persons. They can indulge in the commission of the offence in case o