SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Lakhwinder Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2792 of 2025
Decided On : 09-03-2026.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

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 instigation.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 27A, 29 and 37 - Bail in case of commercial quantity contraband - Allegation of receiving proceeds from sale and depositing with others - Receiving proceeds prima facie does not amount to financing under Section 27A as financing means providing monetary support to sustain illicit traffic, not merely benefiting from it - No evidence of instigation, intentional aid or active steps, hence no abetment under Section 29 - No reasonable ground for rigours of Section 37 - Bail granted. (Paras 10-15)

(B) Bail - Grant parameters - Nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, justice process risk, antecedents - Judicious discretion required without detailed merits examination - Prima facie reasons mandatory. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail post chargesheet in case alleging receipt of proceeds from chain leading to commercial quantity contraband recovery, deposited with associates; claimed innocence, first offender; prosecution opposed citing involvement in trade.

Findings of Court:
No prima facie case under Section 27A or abetment; further detention unjustified.

Issues: Whether receiving and depositing drug proceeds constitutes financing illicit traffic under Section 27A; whether it amounts to abetment under Section 29.

Ratio Decidendi: Financing requires offering funds for operational or sustaining illicit traffic; mere receipt is benefiting, not financing - Abetment needs instigation, goading, intentional aid or encouragement, not passive receipt.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner implicated in ndps fir for heroin proceeds handling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. bail requires judicious application of supreme court parameters. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. petitioner denies ndps liability; state asserts abetment rigours. (Para 5 , 6)
4. drug proceeds receipt not financing under ndps section 27a. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. abetment demands instigation absent in money receipt. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. bail granted lacking prima facie ndps sections 27a/29 case. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 127 of 2024, dated 27.10.2024, registered at Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police apprehended Kamaljeet on 27.10.2024 with 262 grams of heroin. Kamaljeet revealed during the interrogation that he had purchased the heroin from Rajesh Kumar, and it was to be delivered to Rajat Kumar. The police arrested Rajesh Kumar, who disclosed that one Vishal Kumar resident of Dubai, used to send heroin to him. He also disclosed that he used to collect the money and hand it over to Raj Kumar @ Sethi. Raj Kumar handed over the money to the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner, who disclosed during the investigation that he had deposited money with Gagan Sarna, the owner of Gaurav Jewellers. The petitioner has nothing to do with the contraband. He had not sold or delivered the contraband to any person. The petitioner is the first offender. The police have filed the chargesheet before the Court, and the petitioner’s further detention is not justified. He 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 party apprehended Kamajeet Singh with a carry bag containing 262 grams of heroin on 27.10.2024. The police seized the heroin and arrested Kamaljeet. Kamaljeet revealed during the interrogation that he had purchased the heroin from Rajesh, and he was to deliver it to Rajat Kumar. The police checked call details records and found that Rajesh and Rajat Kumar had been in touch with each other. The police apprehended Rajesh, who revealed that Vishal, a resident of Dubai, supplies the heroin to him with directions to further supply it to the persons named by him. He used to hand over the money to Rajesh Kumar alias Sethi. The police apprehended Rajesh Kumar alias Sethi. Rajesh Kumar alias Sethi revealed during the interrogation that he had handed over the money to Lakhvinder Singh (petitioner) as per the directions of Vishal. The police apprehended Lakhvinder, who revealed that he had deposited the money into his account and handed over some of the money to Mohit Singh, an employee of Gaurav Jewellers. He had also handed over about three crores rupees to Gagan Sarna, owner of Gaurav Jeweller. The police arrested Mohit Singh and recovered the gold ornaments, currency notes, and the investment documents. The police also arrested Mohit, who revealed that Lakhwinder had handed over cash, 67 grams of gold jewellery, 97 grams of silver jewellery and a mobile phone to him. The police seized the jewellery, mobile phone, insurance bonds and currency notes worth Rs. 4,90,000/-. The petitioner had deposited about Rs. 4,90,000/-, 67.93 grams of gold, 95.45 grams of silver, and insurance bonds with Mohit Singh. He had also deposited a cash amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-, 1 kg 25 grams gold and 4 grams of silver with Gagan Sarna. This money was generated by the sale of the heroin. The challan was filed before the Court, and the matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 19.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Umesh


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top