The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted regular bail to an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, ruling that a statement made by a co-accused and the existence of financial transactions alone are insufficient grounds for continued detention. Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that a confession made to a police officer during the investigation is inadmissible and cannot be used to implicate a co-accused without independent corroboration.
Background of the Case
The case stems from First Information Report (FIR) No. 52 of 2025, registered on May 22, 2025, at Police Station Manpura, District Solan. According to the prosecution, a police team on patrolling duty received a secret tip-off that co-accused Vishwajit Mandal was selling charas and psychotropic drugs at his clinic.
Acting on the information, the police, accompanied by a Drug Inspector and independent witnesses, raided the clinic. During the search, the police recovered ₹425, a polythene packet containing 859 grams of charas, and an electronic weighing scale. The Drug Inspector also seized other allopathic drugs.
During interrogation, the co-accused Vishwajit Mandal allegedly revealed that the charas had been kept in the clinic by Mahender Singh (the petitioner) and that Singh paid him for storing the contraband. The police relied on this disclosure statement, along with Call Detail Records (CDRs) and bank transactions showing a transfer of ₹1,48,360 from Singh to Mandal, to arrest the petitioner.
Arguments
Mr. Kulwinder Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated solely based on the statement of the co-accused. He contended that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and that the investigation was complete with the charge sheet already filed. He submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.
Opposing the plea, Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, argued that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs. He submitted that the financial transaction of ₹1,48,360 and the call records between the petitioner and the co-accused corroborated the prosecution’s case. He contended that narcotics are adversely affecting society and no leniency should be shown.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the admissibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution, specifically the co-accused’s statement, the Call Detail Records (CDRs), and the financial transactions.
On Admissibility of Co-Accused’s Statement: Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019), the Court reiterated that a confession made to a police officer is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused to implicate the petitioner.”
On Call Detail Records (CDRs): The Court cited its own coordinate bench decision in Saina Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022), holding that CDRs alone are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for denying bail.
Quoting the precedent, the Court noted:
“Except for the existence of CDRs and the disclosure statement of the co-accused, no other material appears to have been collected against the petitioner… the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail.”
On Financial Transactions: Regarding the State’s reliance on the bank transfer of ₹1,48,360, the Court referred to the Kerala High Court judgment in Amal E v. State of Kerala (2023). The Court held that monetary transactions, without proof that they were specifically connected to the sale of narcotics, are not enough to link an accused to the crime at the bail stage.
The Court quoted the observation from Amal E:
“It is true that the documents indicate the monetary transactions between the petitioners and some of the accused persons, but the question that arises is whether the said transactions were in connection with the sale of Narcotic drugs. To establish the same, apart from the confession statements of the accused, there is nothing.”
Decision
Noting that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, the Court concluded that “no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody.”
The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Mahender Singh on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court imposed strict conditions, including:
- The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.
- He must surrender his passport to the Court.
- He must furnish his mobile number and social media contacts to the police and abide by summons received through digital means.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mahender Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Case Number: Cr. MP (M) No. 2583 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
- Advocates: Mr. Kulwinder Singh Gill (for Petitioner), Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Addl. Advocate General (for State)
