Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Swati – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of bail petitions related to drug offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on evidence and implications. (Para 4 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 23) |
| 3. arguments presented by petitioners and state. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal principles regarding bail decisions. (Para 9 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling on bail applications. (Para 24 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail, in FIR No. 282 of 2025 dated 22.11.2025 registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) and Sections 221 and 132 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Since all the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a nakaa on 22.11.2025 at 7 AM at Bhatti Nala near Sulatanpur-Chamba- Pathankot NH-154A. They received a secret information that one Binta Mahajan and her son Aryan Mahajan were dealing in heroin, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching their house.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioners to show innocence in narcotics cases; possession of drugs and financial transactions create a prima facie case against bail eligibility.
Financial transactions and call detail records alone insufficient for prima facie NDPS involvement or financing under Section 27A; mere drug purchase not financing. Bail granted despite prior offence....
Vehicle occupants in conscious possession of intermediate heroin quantity recovered therein; bail denied despite no Section 37 rigours, considering drug menace, criminal antecedents, trafficking indi....
The court emphasized that bail is not an automatic right, especially in drug offenses, considering the applicant's criminal history and the need to protect societal order.
Bail denied in NDPS case with intermediate quantity due to criminal antecedents under NDPS, risk of repetition, and societal drug menace, emphasizing balanced consideration of liberty against public ....
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.
In NDPS cases with intermediate quantity, bail denied considering criminal antecedents, offence repetition risk, and societal drug menace, even absent Section 37 rigours; arrest valid if red-handed; ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
