The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday granted bail to two men arrested in a heroin-related case, holding that bank transactions and phone call records, by themselves, are not enough to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
The order came from a Vacation Bench led by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, which allowed the bail pleas of Sachin and Sorabh, both arrested in connection with an FIR registered in Chamba under the NDPS Act.
The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking regular bail after being arrested on the basis of alleged money transfers and frequent phone calls with the main accused in the case. They argued that there was no recovery of narcotics from them and no direct evidence linking them to the seized contraband.
Read Also:- Ganja Seizure Case: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail Over Violations in NDPS Procedure
The case stems from a police raid conducted on 22 November 2025 in Chamba district. Acting on secret information, the police searched a house allegedly used for selling heroin and recovered 20.65 grams of the drug, along with cash, mobile phones, and other items.
During the investigation, police examined bank accounts of the main accused and found that several people, including the two petitioners, had transferred money to them. On this basis, Sachin and Sorabh were arrested and booked under Sections 21, 29, and 27A of the NDPS Act, along with relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Counsel for the petitioners told the court that the entire case against them rested only on financial transactions and call detail records. He argued that such material could not, at the bail stage, establish their involvement in the alleged drug trade.
The State, however, opposed the plea, submitting that repeated transactions and frequent communication showed the petitioners’ role in the sale and purchase of heroin, and that drug offences had a serious impact on society, particularly on the youth.
A bench led by Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that there was no recovery of narcotic substances from either petitioner. The court observed that money transfers, without more, do not automatically prove a link to the offence.
“The mere existence of financial transactions is not sufficient to connect the petitioners with the commission of a crime,” the court said, while also referring to earlier rulings where call detail records alone were found inadequate to deny bail.
On the charge of “financing” under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, the court made it clear that simply paying money for alleged purchases does not amount to financing illicit drug traffic. Financing, the court noted, implies providing funds to sustain or run illegal drug operations, which was not prima facie shown in this case.
Allowing both bail petitions, the High Court directed that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bonds of ₹1 lakh each, with one surety.
The court imposed strict conditions, including regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with witnesses, surrender of passports, and sharing of contact details with the police. It also clarified that any violation of these conditions would give the prosecution the liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
The court stressed that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Title:- Sachin vs State of Himachal Pradesh,
Sorabh vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number
- Cr.MP(M) No. 3042 of 2025 – Sachin vs State of Himachal Pradesh
- Cr.MP(M) No. 3054 of 2025 – Sorabh vs State of Himachal Pradesh
