Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kirpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
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 has been registered against the petitioner and fourteen other accused. The police arrested the petitioner on 12.12.2025. The allegations against the petitioner are false, and he was involved because of the financial transaction of Rs.18,050/- and the call detail record. The petitioner is the only earning member of his family, consisting of his mother, wife and two children. FIR No. 292 of 2025 has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were checking the vehicles on 22.11.2015. They received a
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.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
Receiving drug sale proceeds and depositing them does not prima facie constitute financing under NDPS Section 27A or abetment under Section 29 absent evidence of providing sustaining funds or instiga....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
The court held that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act without satisfying the statutory requirements of demonstrating that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit fu....
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
