Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Police Official Allegedly Linked To Drug Supply Network
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a police official accused of facilitating a narcotics supply network, holding that although no recovery was made from him, there was sufficient prima facie material linking him with the main supplier through money transfers, WhatsApp chats, mobile phone linkage and bank account operation.Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that:...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused anticipatory bail to a police official accused of facilitating a narcotics supply network, holding that although no recovery was made from him, there was sufficient prima facie material linking him with the main supplier through money transfers, WhatsApp chats, mobile phone linkage and bank account operation.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that: “The status report shows that there is sufficient material, at this stage, to prima facie connect the petitioner with Sandeep Shah… The police recovered a WhatsApp chat… Sandeep Shah had transferred money… The petitioner's mobile phone was linked to the account… The WhatsApp chat indicated that the petitioner was the person chatting with Sandeep Shah.”
Background:
The petitioner filed a petition before the high court, seeking pre-arrest bail for offences under Sections 21, 27A and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, as there was no recovery made from him.
In response, the State contended that the police checked the call detail records and the bank account statements, which prima facie established links between the petitioner and the drug supplier.
The Court remarked that the WhatsApp chat indicated that the petitioner was the person chatting with the drug supplier, which justified the investigation of the petitioner's role in the supply of heroin.
Further, the Court noted that the police was yet to recover, critical evidence, including the handset, the weighing machine and the vehicle used in the commission of the crime. These circumstances justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner.”
Thus, the Court stated that interrogation would be interrupted if a suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order.
Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition and held that the statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible and the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail cannot be accepted.
Case Name: Rahul Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No.2052 of 2025
Date of Decision: 25.11.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with M/s Nitin Soni and Yug Singhal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.