Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Can't Detain Accused On Presumption That Blood Sample Is Likely To Indicate Presence Of Heroin: Himachal Pradesh High Court
|The Petitioner had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man booked under the provisions of the NDPS Act and held that it is impermissible to detain him in custody on the presumption that the blood sample is likely to indicate the presence of heroin.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held, “It was submitted that the police have sent the blood sample to the FSL, and the same is likely to indicate the presence of heroin. It is difficult to appreciate this submission. A person cannot be detained in custody based on the assumption that some incriminating substance would be found against him. The police have to connect the person with the commission of a crime before his detention can be justified; therefore, it is impermissible to detain the petitioner in custody on the presumption that the blood sample is likely to indicate the presence of heroin.”
Senior Advocate Peeyush Verma represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that there was nothing to connect the petitioner to the house from where the recovery was effected. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated.
It was the case of the Respondent that the police had recovered burnt currency notes of Rs 10 used for the consumption of heroin. The police had taken the blood samples of the petitioner and the co-accused, which were sent to FSL for analysis, and the result was awaited.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that, as per the status report, pouches and bundles of currency notes were kept beneath the mattress inside the room of the co-accused. There was nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime except his visit to the house. Reference was also made to the judgment in Shubham Bitalu Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) wherein it has been observed that a casual visitor to the home cannot, prima facie, be attributed with the knowledge of the presence of narcotics kept inside the house.
Considering that a heavy reliance was placed upon the statement made by the petitioner and the co-accused that they had purchased the heroin for their self-consumption from one Gopi, the Bench said, “No advantage can be derived from the statement made by the petitioner and the co-accused during the investigation.”
On the contention that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he should not be released on bail, the Bench held that the criminal antecedents would have been relevant, had the prosecution succeeded in making a prima facie case against the petitioner. As per the Bench, no prima facie was made out against the petitioner, and the petitioner could not be detained in custody based on mere criminal antecedents.
Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench ordered the petitioner to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 1 lakh.
Cause Title: Mahesh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:24720)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Peeyush Verma, Advocate Anuj Bali
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma