Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kirpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ndps fir details, raid, recoveries, petitioner linked by transactions. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner falsely implicated; transactions/cdr insufficient; not financier. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. bail rule over jail; consider evidence, antecedents, justice risks. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. petitioner prior offender; risk of reoffending on bail. (Para 6) |
| 5. financial transactions alone insufficient for ndps implication. (Para 11 , 15) |
| 6. call records, co-accused disclosures inadequate for custody. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. drug purchase not 'financing' under section 27a ndps. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. no prima facie case; antecedents secondary without evidence. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. bail granted with conditions; observations not on merits. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 282 of 2025, dated 22.11.2025, registered at Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and Sections 221 and 132 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
2. It has been asserted that a false case ha
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....
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 records alone are insufficient to justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act when no substantial evidence connects the accused to the crime.
In NDPS cases, co-accused confessional statements to police, call detail records, and financial transactions alone insufficient for prima facie case denying regular bail; further detention unjustifie....
Receipt of drug sale proceeds does not prima facie constitute financing under NDPS Section 27A or abetment under Section 29 absent instigation or sustaining illicit traffic, justifying bail despite c....
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
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
