“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.” With this categorical observation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The case arose from an FIR alleging recovery of heroin and bundles of currency notes from the premises of a co-accused. The petitioner was present at the house during the search but claimed to be merely a casual visitor, with no knowledge of the contraband allegedly concealed beneath the mattress. After being remanded to custody by the trial court, he approached the High Court seeking regular bail.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that no contraband was recovered from Mahesh Thakur and that his mere presence at the co-accused’s residence could not, by itself, establish either knowledge or possession of narcotics. It was further argued that the prosecution’s reliance on an alleged confession was untenable, as any statement made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that both the petitioner and the co-accused had admitted to being heroin addicts and had even named a supplier. It added that their blood samples had been collected and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, the report of which was still awaited.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla rejected the State’s contention, while holding, “It is impermissible to detain the petitioner in custody on the presumption that the blood sample is likely to indicate the presence of heroin.” The Court noted that the recovery was made from the room of the co-accused and that there was no material connecting the petitioner to the alleged narcotics except his presence in the house. It relied on precedents including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible, and Shubham Bitalu Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, where mere presence at the house of an accused was not sufficient to deny bail.
The judge also clarified that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention in the absence of a prima facie case.
Consequently, while allowing the bail application, the Court ordered Thakur’s release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including not intimidating witnesses, attending trial proceedings, surrendering his passport, and sharing his mobile and social media contact details with the authorities. The Court further directed that a violation of any condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
Case Title: Mahesh Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1706 of 2025
Coram: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Advocate for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Peeyush Verma, Adv. Anuj Bali
Advocate for Respondent: Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma, HC Vinod Kumar
Picture Source :
