Mere Call Records and Bank Transfers Insufficient for NDPS Conviction: Himachal Pradesh HC

In a decisive blow to speculative prosecutions, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that financial transactions and call detail records, in the absence of corroborative substantive evidence, cannot form the sole basis for detaining accused individuals under narcotics laws.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, sitting as a single-judge bench, delivered this significant verdict while hearing a cluster of regular bail petitions involving multiple accused charged with the sale of heroin. The Court scrutinized the prosecution's reliance on digital footprints and co-accused statements to justify continued incarceration.

Key Takeaways

Digital Evidence Limitations

Call Detail Records (CDRs) and financial transfers via payment scanners are considered corroborative, not substantive, evidence to establish a prima facie case for drug trafficking.

Inadmissibility of Co-Accused Statements

Confessions made by co-accused during police investigation are hit by the bar of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and cannot be used as primary evidence against other suspects.

Bail as the Rule

Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify the denial of personal liberty if the prosecution fails to establish a fundamental link between the accused and the specific contraband seized.

Protection Under NDPS Act

The stringent conditions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not met solely by showing monetary transactions without proving they were specifically for the sale of narcotic drugs.

Court Scrutinizes Evidentiary Value of Financial Trails

The Court observed that the prosecution primarily relied on statements made by co-accused and financial transactions ranging from ₹1.49 lakh to over ₹6.43 lakh transferred to the main accused. Citing the precedent in 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 bench reiterated that a statement made by an accused to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Referring to Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu ( "2021 (4) SCC 1": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1147), the Court emphasized that a confession of a co-accused cannot be taken as substantive evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence. The bench further noted that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had previously held in Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. ( "2020 Cri. L.J. 4564": 2020 CaseBase(HP) 341) and Saina Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh ( "2022 Law Suit (HP) 211": 2022 CaseBase(HP) 497) that CDR details and disclosure statements are insufficient to keep a petitioner in custody without additional material.

The Court has following directions:

"(i) The petitioners will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will they influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

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

(iii) The petitioners will not leave the present addresses 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 petitioners will surrender their passport, if any, to the Court; and

(v) The petitioners will furnish their 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. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the prosecution was required to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners before they can be detained in custody. Where the prosecution has not established any prima facie case against the petitioners, they cannot be detained in custody simply because they have criminal antecedents. Therefore, the criminal antecedents are not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioners."

Ratio

Financial transactions and Call Detail Records (CDR) between an accused and a co-accused do not, by themselves, constitute sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Such evidence must be supported by substantive material demonstrating that the transactions were specifically related to the sale or purchase of narcotic drugs to satisfy the court's conscience for the denial of bail.

Background

The case originated from a police raid at the residence of one Priya Devi in Palampur, where 16.06 grams of heroin were recovered. During the investigation, police discovered deleted photographs and financial trails indicating that the petitioners had transferred various sums of money to the accounts of the co-accused via payment scanners. The state argued that the petitioners were part of a larger drug trafficking network, citing their criminal histories and voice notes saved on mobile devices.

The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated based only on statements of other accused and bank entries, which did not prove a nexus with the seized contraband. The Court, citing Amal E vs State of Kerala, noted that monetary transactions alone do not establish the sale of narcotics. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petitions, noting that the investigation was complete and the filing of the charge-sheet removed the necessity for custodial detention.

Case Details:
Case No.: CrMP(M) No. 1956, 1959, 1971, 1973 and 1994 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:45687
Case Title: Hunny Kumar v. State of H.P. (and connected matters)
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Jeevan Kumar, Advocate; Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate; Mr Suneel Awasthi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General; Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 9473