Mere Co-Accused Statements And Financial Links Insufficient For NDPS Detention: Himachal HC

Holding that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed based solely on inadmissible confessions, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has ruled that statements made by co-accused during investigation and unexplained financial transactions are insufficient to deny bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Court emphasized that such evidence lacks substantive value unless corroborated by independent material, reinforcing the principle of 'bail not jail' even in cases involving psychotropic substances.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the matter, considered a regular bail petition filed by an individual accused of supplying heroin and methamphetamine. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the disclosure statements of two individuals caught with contraband and certain bank transactions involving the petitioner's account.

Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements Under NDPS Act

The Court observed that confessions made to police officers during investigation are hit by Section 162 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relying on 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) and Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Court reiterated that a confession by a co-accused cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other existing evidence.

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "Therefore, even if a statement contains an admission, the statement being one under Section 161, it would immediately attract the bar under Section 162 CrPC. A confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilised to lend assurance to the other evidence."

Financial Transactions and Criminal Antecedents

Addressing the State’s argument regarding bank deposits, the Court noted that monetary transactions alone do not establish a link to drug trafficking without evidence of the underlying purpose. Referencing Amal E vs State of Kerala, the Bench held that financial links evoke a reasonable doubt but do not satisfy the threshold for continued detention without corroboration. Furthermore, the Court clarified that criminal antecedents cannot be a ground to deny bail when the primary evidence connecting the accused to the current crime is legally fragile.

Court Directions

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."

Key Takeaways:

Inadmissibility of Police Confessions

Confessional statements recorded by police officers under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not admissible as substantive evidence against co-accused, following the Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu mandate. 

Monetary Links Require Corroboration

Evidence of financial transactions between accused persons is insufficient to sustain detention unless specifically linked to the sale or purchase of narcotics through independent evidence. 

Antecedents vs. Current Evidence

An accused's prior criminal record (antecedents) cannot compensate for a lack of prima facie evidence in the current case to justify the rejection of a bail application. 

Ratio Decidendi:

A statement made by a co-accused to a police officer during investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 162 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot form the sole basis for denying bail. Financial transactions and call detail records, in the absence of corroborative material linking them to the commission of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, do not constitute 'reasonable grounds' to believe the accused is guilty for the purpose of statutory bail restrictions.
 

Background:

The dispute arose following the registration of FIR No. 45 of 2026 at Parwanoo Police Station. The police intercepted a vehicle and recovered 11.45 grams of heroin and 3.56 grams of methamphetamine from two occupants. During interrogation, the occupants named the petitioner as the drug supplier, alleging they had made payments to him. The petitioner sought bail arguing that the entire case against him was based on inadmissible co-accused statements and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail citing the petitioner's criminal history and bank transactions. The Court, after analyzing precedents like Pinki v. State of U.P. and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, found the evidence insufficient for continued custody and granted bail subject to conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1061 of 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:HHC:27515
Case Title: Aman Kumar Versus State of HP
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms Kanta Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 27