Court’s Decision
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided by Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla, granted regular bail to the petitioner accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The court concluded that there was no evidence to directly link the petitioner to the possession or transaction of heroin. Given the absence of sufficient incriminating evidence and the petitioner’s societal ties, the court deemed it appropriate to release him on bail with conditions.
Facts
- Background of Arrest: The petitioner was arrested following an FIR (No. 74 of 2024) filed under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The arrest stemmed from secret information received by the police, indicating the transportation of heroin in a vehicle.
- Seizure Details: When the police intercepted the vehicle, they recovered 8.91 grams of heroin from a co-passenger’s backpack. The petitioner was a passenger in the same vehicle but did not have any contraband on him.
- Investigative Findings:
- The police claimed that financial transactions (₹15,000 and ₹5,000) were linked to the procurement of heroin, facilitated by other accused individuals.
- Co-accused individuals, Raman Ravi Verma and Himmat, had already been released on bail.
- The petitioner remained in judicial custody, with no direct evidence of financial or physical involvement in the narcotics trade.
- Previous Criminal Record: The petitioner had a pending case under the NDPS Act, which the State sought to use as an argument against bail.
Issues
- Was the petitioner in conscious possession of the contraband, as required under the NDPS Act?
- Was there sufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses to deny bail?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Factual Defense:
- The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, emphasizing that the heroin was found in a co-passenger’s possession and not on him.
- He argued that traveling in the same vehicle as the co-accused did not imply culpability.
- Commitment to Compliance:
- The petitioner pledged to adhere to all conditions imposed by the court, attend the trial, and refrain from influencing the investigation or witnesses.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Serious Allegations: The State argued that the petitioner was part of a criminal conspiracy to transport heroin for public sale, which is a serious offense under the NDPS Act.
- Societal Impact: The respondent highlighted that releasing the petitioner could harm societal interests and embolden others involved in drug-related crimes.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined established principles from Supreme Court precedents regarding bail under the NDPS Act:
- Grant of Bail Factors:
- The Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher emphasized considering factors like the nature of the accusations, the role of the accused, and risks like flight or tampering with evidence.
- Other relevant cases, such as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, stressed judicial discretion and societal concerns.
- Burden of Proof:
- Under the NDPS Act, possession and knowledge of contraband are key to establishing guilt.
- The court noted that prima facie evidence did not support the petitioner’s involvement, making a denial of bail unjustified.
Precedent Analysis
The court relied on established case law to outline the parameters for granting or denying bail. These include:
- Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004): Highlighted the necessity of evidence for grave accusations.
- Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia (2020): Stressed that granting bail depends on judicial discretion and evidence sufficiency.
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010): Reiterated the importance of assessing risk factors like flight and evidence tampering.
Court’s Reasoning
- Lack of Evidence:
- The court noted that the petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the contraband.
- No evidence linked him to monetary transactions or direct involvement in the procurement or transportation of heroin.
- Societal Roots:
- The petitioner was a permanent resident of Shimla, reducing the risk of absconding.
- His societal ties and willingness to cooperate with the trial process strengthened his case for bail.
- Comparable Treatment:
- Co-accused individuals had already been released on bail. Denying bail to the petitioner, given the lack of direct evidence against him, would be inconsistent.
- Risk Assessment:
- The court balanced societal concerns with individual liberty, ruling that the petitioner’s release would not adversely impact the trial or society.
Conclusion
The court allowed the petitioner’s bail plea, directing him to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties. Strict conditions were imposed, including:
- Non-intimidation of witnesses.
- Regular trial attendance.
- Restrictions on travel without notifying authorities.
- Surrendering his passport and sharing mobile/social media details with the police and court.
The court explicitly stated that any breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that:
- Evidence is Paramount: Mere presence at the scene or association with co-accused does not establish culpability under the NDPS Act.
- Liberty vs. Societal Impact: Courts must balance individual rights with societal interests when granting bail.
- Consistency in Bail Orders: Co-accused being granted bail strengthens the case for similarly situated individuals.
This decision sets a significant precedent for interpreting possession and involvement under the NDPS Act, highlighting the court’s cautious approach in cases lacking direct evidence.