IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Shabnam - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2001 of 2025
Decided On : 16-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation based on financial transactions linking to drug trade. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense claims innocence; petition opposed due to involvement allegations. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. court weighs evidence against bail considerations and definitions. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conditions for bail set while highlighting the need to protect legal proceedings. (Para 15 , 16) |
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 at about 7:00 pm with 262 grams of heroin. Kamaljeet revealed that he had purchased heroin from Rajesh Lodhi. The police arrested Rajesh Kumar, who disclosed that one Vishal Kumar alias Shalubaliresident of Dubai, used to send heroin to him. He (Rajesh Kumar) would collect money and hand it over to Raj Kumar @ Sethi, who used to hand over the money to Lakhvinder. The police arrested Lakhvinder, who disclosed that he had handed over Rs. 3.00 crores to Gagan Sarna and some money to Mohit Singh alias Toni, an employee of Gaurav Jeweller. Lakhwinder also disclosed that he had deposited some money in his account and some money in the petitioner’s account. The petitioner is Lakhwinder’s daughter. The police arrested the petitioner. She disclosed that she had a joint account with her father, which was being operated by her and Lakhwinder. She was aware of the deposit of Rs. 49,78,845/- in her account by her father. The petitioner was arrested because of the deposit of the money by her father in her account. No recovery was made from the petitioner. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the bail petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party apprehended Kamaljeet 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 he (Rajesh) and Rajat Kumar had been in touch with each other. The police apprehended Rajesh, who revealed that Vishal alias Shalubali, 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, who revealed during the interrogation that he had handed over the money to Lakhvinder Singh 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 gold ornaments, currency notes, and investment documents. Lakhwinder disclosed that he had deposited the money in a joint account with the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner, who revealed that she was married to Saravjeet in the year 2020. She had opened a bank account with her father, Lakhwinder, in the year 2022, which was being operated jointly. Lakhwinder had deposited Rs. 49,78,845/- in the joint account. Lakhwinder had taken ICICI Prudential Policy in the petitioner’s name, and the instalment of Rs. 45.00 lacs was paid by Lakhwinder. Lakhwinder had also opened a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 30.00 lacs in the petitioner’s name. The petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. The charge shee
The court determined that financial transactions alone do not establish involvement in drug trafficking, necessitating prima facie evidence for bail denial.
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....
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.
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.