Parents Not Liable For Contraband Allegedly Kept By Adult Child At Their House: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that parents cannot automatically be held liable for contraband allegedly kept by their adult child merely because it was recovered from the parents' house.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Investigating Agency, after having noticed name of the co-accused Pratibha @ Preeti on envelope containing contraband, had already arrived at conclusion that same was of co-accused Pratibha @ Preeti. Needless to say, parents cannot be held liable for contraband, if any, kept by their child.”

Background:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The police recovered 15 grams of chitta during investigation which was concealed beneath roof slates above a toilet adjoining the kitchen.

The search was conducted in the presence of the petitioner's daughters because the petitioner was in Chandigarh at the relevant time. The envelope containing the contraband bore the name of one of her daughters, Pratibha @ Preeti, who was subsequently arrested. Since the contraband had been recovered from the petitioner's house, she too was arrayed as an accused.

Earlier, the High Court had granted her interim anticipatory bail subject to joining the investigation. The State opposed confirmation of bail, contending that although the petitioner had joined the investigation, she had not cooperated fully, had failed to explain her visit to Chandigarh or produce medical documents, and that there was material indicating her involvement in the narcotics trade. It was argued that her release could enable her to flee justice or indulge in similar activities.

The High Court held that the mere recovery of contraband from the petitioner's house was insufficient to justify her custodial interrogation, particularly when she was not present during the search and the investigation itself indicated that the contraband belonged to her daughter.

The Court noted that the police had arrested the daughter after finding her name on the envelope containing the contraband, and the petitioner had voluntarily permitted the search of her house after being informed by the Investigating Officer. Having already joined the investigation and with nothing left to be recovered from her, the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.

The Court further rejected the State's attempt to attribute possession of the contraband to the petitioner solely because it was recovered from her house. It held that the investigating agency itself had concluded that the contraband belonged to the petitioner's daughter and therefore the petitioner could not be held responsible merely on account of ownership of the premises.

Thus, the Court made the interim bail absolute and imposed conditions.

Case Name: Tripta Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case No.: Cr.MP(M) No.1023 of 2026

Decision Date: 29.06.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order