IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mohit Singh @ Toni - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2569 of 2025
Decided On : 27-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner linked to drug money via co-accused disclosures. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parity bail sought; state cites ndps commercial quantity rigours. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. bail discretion requires weighing offence nature, evidence, antecedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. receiving drug proceeds not financing under ndps section 27a. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. no instigation or aid; mere receipt not abetment under section 29. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. no prima facie ndps offence; bail granted with conditions. (Para 15 , 17) |
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 and was to be delivered to Rajat Kumar. The police arrested Rajesh Kumar, who disclosed that one Vishal Kumar resident of Dubai, used to send contraband to him. He (Rajesh Kumar) used to sell it and hand over the money to Raj Kumar alias Sethi. Raj Kumar had handed over the money to Lakhwinder. Police arrested Lakhwinder, who disclosed that he had deposited the money with the petitioner, who is an employee of Gaurav Jewellers. The police arrested the petitioner. The grounds of arrest were not supplied to the petitioner, which is violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was falsely implicated, and there is no material to connect him to the commission of the crime. The co-accused Gagan Sarna, Rajesh Kumar and Shabnam have been released on bail. The petitioner is a first offender, and there is nothing to connect him to the commission of the crime. 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 record 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 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, Mohit Singh and recovered the gold ornaments, currency notes, and the investment documents. The petitioner also 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 ₹4,90,000/-. The petitioner had kept drug money with him to benefit the drug dealers. The challan was filed before the Court, and the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 19.12.2025. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Mr Umesh
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....
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....
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.
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.