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.
| 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
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....
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....
The court determined that financial transactions alone do not establish involvement in drug trafficking, necessitating prima facie evidence for bail denial.
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.
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to criminal antecedents, prior bail violation via similar offence, and prima facie conscious possession from presence at recovery site.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and that deprivation of liberty before conviction has a substantial punitive content. The court....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.