The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a person accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be remanded in custody solely on the presumption that a blood or other sample sent to a forensic laboratory (FSL) might reveal the presence of heroin or other contraband. Chief Justice Rakesh Kainthla emphasized that detention cannot be justified merely on the anticipation of incriminating laboratory findings. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with an FIR alleging possession of heroin and criminal conspiracy under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was apprehended from a co-accused's premises and claimed to have had no involvement in the contraband discovery, stating he was merely a casual visitor who had no connection to the items allegedly found beneath a mattress.
In resisting bail, the State relied on the fact that the petitioner’s blood sample had been dispatched to the FSL for analysis, and suggested that the results were likely to establish his connection to the narcotics. The High Court responded that such assumptions provide no legal basis to keep a person in custody; investigative agencies must demonstrate a concrete link between the accused and the alleged offense before detention can be justified. The Court further noted that no other material connecting him to the contraband was produced, apart from his presence at the premises of the co-accused.
The Court also observed that statements made to police officers during investigation — including potential admissions of drug addiction — are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be relied upon to justify custody. Without solid evidence or corroboration, such admissions are insufficient to deny bail in NDPS cases, especially when they form the sole basis for detention. Consequently, the High Court granted bail, holding that custodial detention based on mere assumption or pending forensic results would be contrary to principles of personal liberty and due process.
The judgment underscores that the NDPS Act does not allow detention on speculative grounds. The Court reiterated that presumption of guilt solely from forensic submissions, without corresponding material evidence or statutory grounds, cannot sustain denial of bail. This ruling clarifies that pending results from a forensic laboratory cannot, by themselves, justify curtailing an accused’s liberty.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.