The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an individual cannot be detained solely on the presumption that forensic analysis may later reveal incriminating evidence, such as traces of heroin. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while allowing a bail application, observed that detention must be based on concrete evidence linking the accused to the commission of the alleged offence.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, alleging possession of heroin and criminal conspiracy. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the contraband was recovered from the house of the co-accused, and that he had no connection to the premises. The petitioner maintained that he was merely a casual visitor and had no knowledge of the narcotics allegedly found concealed beneath a mattress.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioner and co-accused had admitted during investigation that they were heroin users and had been purchasing the contraband. It further submitted that their blood samples had been collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis, the results of which were still pending.
Rejecting the State’s argument, the Court held:
"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."
The Court, after examining the status report, noted that the alleged narcotics and currency bundles were recovered from beneath a mattress in a room belonging to the co-accused. There was no material on record, apart from the petitioner’s mere presence at the house, that established his involvement.
Additionally, the Court observed that the prosecution could not rely upon the statements allegedly made by the petitioner and co-accused during police investigation, as such confessions are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, reiterating that detention cannot be sustained on speculative or presumptive grounds.
Picture Source :
