Court’s Decision
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the bail petitions of the accused, granting them regular bail in an NDPS and BNS case, ruling that statements of co-accused, call detail records, and mere financial transactions are insufficient for denying bail under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. The Court held that financing under Section 27A requires direct evidence beyond financial transactions, and invocation of Section 111 of BNS requires proof of charge sheets within ten years to establish organised crime, which was absent in this case.
Facts
The case arose from the recovery of 26.68 grams of heroin from Sohan Lal and Geeta Sreshta on 4 March 2025. Investigation revealed large bank transactions, including deposits by the petitioners into accounts of Sohan Lal and others, leading to arrests under Sections 21, 27A, 29 of the NDPS Act, and Section 111 of the BNS. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated solely based on financial transactions and call records, with no direct recovery from them, and had been in custody since 29 March 2025.
Issues
- Whether statements of co-accused, call detail records, and financial transactions alone suffice to deny bail under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act was justified.
- Whether Section 111 BNS was correctly invoked in the absence of prior charge sheets against the petitioners.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated based on UPI transactions and call records without recovery of contraband from them. They relied on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat to argue that co-accused statements are inadmissible. They further contended that financial transactions do not constitute financing under Section 27A and that Section 111 BNS cannot be invoked without charge sheets within the preceding ten years.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued the petitioners were part of an organised crime syndicate dealing in heroin, as evident from call records and financial transactions, justifying denial of bail under Sections 27A and 29 NDPS Act and Section 111 BNS.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Section 27A NDPS Act and Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India, holding “financing” requires evidence beyond simple monetary transactions.
- Section 111 BNS, which requires two charge sheets within ten years, referencing Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala and State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane.
- The admissibility bar under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 of the Evidence Act, reaffirming Tofan Singh and Dipakbhai Patel.
- Saina Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Amal E v. State of Kerala emphasising that CDRs and financial transactions alone are insufficient for bail denial under NDPS.
Precedent Analysis
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu: Co-accused confessions inadmissible.
- Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India: Financing requires more than payment; it implies sustaining the illicit trade.
- Mohd. Hashim v. State of Kerala: Section 111 BNS cannot apply without two prior charge sheets.
- Amal E v. State of Kerala: Financial transactions alone do not establish NDPS offences.
- Saina Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh: Bail should not be denied solely on CDRs and co-accused statements.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- Statements of co-accused are inadmissible.
- Financial transactions do not establish “financing” under Section 27A.
- Section 111 BNS requires at least two prior charge sheets in ten years, absent here.
- The petitioners’ continued detention was unjustified without prima facie evidence of their direct involvement in the crime.
Conclusion
The High Court granted bail to the petitioners on furnishing bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with one surety, imposing conditions to:
- Not influence witnesses.
- Attend trial without unnecessary adjournments.
- Not leave their address without informing the Court and police station.
Implications
- Clarifies the stringent bail conditions under NDPS must align with constitutional safeguards.
- Reaffirms that co-accused statements and financial transactions alone are insufficient to deny bail.
- Limits misuse of Section 111 BNS and Section 27A NDPS Act without strict compliance with statutory conditions.
Short Note on Cases Referred
- Tofan Singh: Co-accused confessions inadmissible.
- Rhea Chakraborty: Defines “financing” under Section 27A.
- Mohd. Hashim: Section 111 BNS requires prior charge sheets.
- Amal E: Financial transactions alone insufficient under NDPS.
- Saina Devi: CDRs and co-accused statements alone insufficient for denying bail.
FAQs
1. Are co-accused statements admissible under the NDPS Act to deny bail?
No, they are inadmissible and cannot be used to deny bail.
2. Does transferring money to a co-accused establish financing under Section 27A NDPS Act?
No, “financing” requires evidence of sustaining or enabling illicit trade, not mere transactions.
3. Can Section 111 BNS be invoked without prior charge sheets?
No, it requires at least two charge sheets within ten years to establish organised crime.
