Court’s Decision
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to the petitioners arrested under Sections 21, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, observing that statements of co-accused and mere financial transactions without corroborative evidence are insufficient to justify continued custody. The Court directed release on bail with conditions to ensure presence during trial while protecting the petitioners’ right to liberty.
Facts
The petitioners were arrested based on the recovery of 6.380 grams of heroin from co-accused in a hotel room, who named Sandeep Shah as the supplier during police interrogation. Investigation revealed the petitioners had transferred amounts to the bank accounts of Sandeep Shah and Neeraj Kashyap. The State alleged these transactions were linked to drug trafficking and sought continued custody under NDPS and BNS provisions, asserting the petitioners’ involvement in an organised crime syndicate.
The petitioners argued that the co-accused’s statements were inadmissible, the transactions were not proven to be linked to drug trafficking, the investigation was complete, and further custody would serve no purpose.
Issues
- Whether the statements of co-accused implicating the petitioners can be relied upon to deny bail under NDPS Act.
- Whether mere financial transactions with the alleged supplier are sufficient to establish prima facie guilt for continuing detention.
- Applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act and Section 111 BNS in the absence of admissible evidence and previous charge sheets.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- The statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 CrPC, as held in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
- Financial transactions alone do not prove involvement in drug trafficking without corroboration, per Amal E v. State of Kerala.
- Section 27A NDPS Act regarding financing drug trafficking does not cover mere payment for purchase, relying on Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India.
- Section 111 BNS requires previous charge sheets within ten years to establish continuing unlawful activity, which is absent, as clarified in Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala.
- Prolonged detention violates the right to liberty when evidence is insufficient.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- The petitioners made substantial financial transfers to Sandeep Shah and others, indicating their involvement in a drug trafficking syndicate.
- The seriousness of the NDPS offences and their societal impact required continued custody.
- If released, the petitioners might abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, obstructing trial.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Tofan Singh and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel to reaffirm that co-accused confessions to police are inadmissible and cannot be sole grounds for detention.
- Amal E and Rhea Chakraborty to clarify that financial transactions without proof of linkage to drug trade are insufficient to invoke Section 27A.
- Section 111 BNS requires two charge sheets in the preceding ten years and a proven act of organised crime, per Mohd. Hashim and Om Prakash v. State of Karnataka.
- Bail considerations require balancing the gravity of offences with the sufficiency of evidence, the right to liberty, and trial requirements as per Ajwar v. Waseem and Ramratan v. State of MP.
Precedent Analysis
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021): Confession to police is inadmissible, relevant here for excluding co-accused statements.
- Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India (2021): Financing under Section 27A NDPS requires more than purchase payments.
- Amal E v. State of Kerala (2023): Financial transactions alone are insufficient to establish NDPS offence involvement.
- Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala (2024): Section 111 BNS requires previous charge sheets within ten years for invocation.
- Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) and Ramratan v. State of MP (2024): Factors for granting bail in serious offences include nature of accusation, sufficiency of evidence, and liberty considerations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- Statements by co-accused during police investigation are inadmissible and cannot justify denial of bail.
- The financial transactions were not proven to be linked to the sale or financing of narcotics.
- Section 27A NDPS does not apply as financing requires more than mere purchase payments.
- Section 111 BNS prerequisites were not met, as there were no previous charge sheets within the preceding ten years, and no organised crime act was established.
- There was insufficient evidence to justify further detention, and continued custody would violate the petitioners’ right to liberty.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the bail petitions, holding that:
- The petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹1,00,000 with sureties.
- They must not tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond.
- The co-accused statements and financial transactions, without further evidence, cannot be grounds for continued detention under NDPS and BNS provisions.
Implications
- Reinforces protection against prolonged detention under NDPS and BNS where evidence is insufficient.
- Clarifies the scope of Sections 27A NDPS and 111 BNS, requiring clear linkage and statutory prerequisites.
- Strengthens the principle that bail should not be denied solely based on inadmissible co-accused confessions and unexplained transactions without proof of crime linkage.
Summary of Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu: Confessions to police inadmissible; applied to exclude co-accused statements.
- Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India: Clarified “financing” under NDPS does not include mere purchase payments.
- Amal E v. State of Kerala: Financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail.
- Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala: Section 111 BNS requires prior charge sheets and proof of continuing unlawful activity.
- Ajwar v. Waseem and Ramratan v. State of MP: Guiding principles on bail in serious offences.
These cases collectively supported the petitioners’ right to bail in the absence of admissible evidence linking them to the crime.
FAQs
1. Can a person be denied bail under NDPS solely based on co-accused statements?
No, co-accused statements during police investigation are inadmissible and cannot solely justify denial of bail.
2. Does transferring money to a person later arrested for drug offences prove guilt under NDPS?
No, without proof that the transaction was linked to drug trafficking, such transfers alone are insufficient for continued detention.
3. When can Section 111 of BNS be invoked in drug-related cases?
Only when there are previous charge sheets within ten years and evidence of continuing unlawful activity; mere suspicion is not enough.
