Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Lakhwinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| 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 re
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....
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
