Financial Transactions and Co-Accused Statements Insufficient for NDPS Detention: Himachal Pradesh HC

Digital footprints and monetary transfers alone cannot sustain a criminal prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act without substantive corroborative evidence. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has underscored that confessions made to police officers and call detail records do not meet the threshold for denying personal liberty, especially when the recovery of contraband is not directly linked to the accused.

A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla heard the regular bail petition of an individual accused of being part of a drug trafficking network. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in the trade of heroin based on significant financial transactions and data retrieved from a co-accused's mobile phone, despite no physical recovery of narcotics from his possession.

Key Takeaways

Proof Beyond Transactions

Financial transfers to co-accused, even if substantial, are not standalone evidence of drug trafficking without proof that the money was for contraband.

Inadmissibility of Co-Accused Confessions

Statements made by co-accused during police investigation are hit by the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be treated as substantive evidence against others.

Limitations of Digital Evidence

Call Detail Records (CDR) and location data serve as corroborative material but cannot form the primary basis for denying bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Preservation of Personal Liberty

In the absence of a direct link to the recovered narcotics, the principle of 'bail, not jail' must prevail to protect the fundamental rights of the accused.

Evidentiary Threshold Under NDPS Act

The Court observed that the prosecution primarily relied on statements of co-accused and financial logs to implicate the petitioner. Citing Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat ( "(2019) 16 SCC 547; (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 3174), the Court noted that confessions to police are inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, a confession by a co-accused can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence, not as a substantive piece of evidence itself.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The disclosure made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu ( "2021 (4) SCC 1": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1147). Further... the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of bail. The police have also relied upon the financial transaction to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime; however, that is not sufficient."

The Court has following directions:
"(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account."

Ratio

Financial transactions between parties and the disclosure statements of co-accused made during investigation are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for the denial of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Such materials do not constitute substantive evidence and cannot override the fundamental principle of personal liberty unless corroborated by direct recovery or other admissible evidence linking the accused to the specific crime.

Background

The case originated from FIR No. 57 of 2026 at Police Station Palampur, where 16.06 grams of heroin were initially recovered from a residence. Subsequent investigations led to the recovery of 128.08 grams of heroin from a deserted spot based on statements from another accused. The petitioner was arrested after the police found financial transactions amounting to ₹3,39,703 between him and the co-accused.

The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that no recovery was made from him. The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the crime and the suspicious financial links. The Court, however, relied on Pinki v. State of U.P. to reiterate the standard parameters for bail and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand for the 'bail not jail' doctrine. It also referred to Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. ( "2020 Cri. L.J. 4564": 2020 CaseBase(HP) 341) regarding the insufficiency of phone calls for detention and Amal E vs State of Kerala regarding financial transactions. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1855 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:43192
Case Title: Shubham Kondal Versus State of HP
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General with ASI Manveer Singh.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 9444