The Himachal Pradesh High Court has made absolute the anticipatory bail granted to women in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observing that a parent cannot automatically be held responsible for contraband allegedly kept by an adult child. Justice Sandeep Sharma held that the material placed before the Court did not justify the petitioner's custodial interrogation after she had joined the investigation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 31 of 2026 registered at Police Station Rakkar, Kangra, under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the police conducted a search of Tripta Devi's house after receiving secret information. During the search, conducted in the presence of her daughters and independent witnesses, officials allegedly recovered 15 grams of "chitta" concealed near a toilet adjoining the kitchen.
The investigating agency noted that the packet carrying the alleged contraband bore the name of the petitioner's daughter, Pratibha @ Preeti, who was subsequently arrested. Tripta Devi later sought anticipatory bail before the High Court.
Court's Observations
While opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioner had not fully cooperated with the investigation and that the recovery from her house justified her prosecution. However, the Court noted that Tripta Devi was not present when the search took place and that the recovery was made in the presence of her daughters. It also observed that the investigating agency itself had arrested the daughter after finding her name on the envelope containing the alleged contraband.
Justice Sandeep Sharma observed,
"Parents cannot be held liable for contraband, if any, kept by their child."
The Court further remarked that once the police had concluded that the recovered substance allegedly belonged to the petitioner's daughter and the petitioner had already joined the investigation, there appeared to be no justification for custodial interrogation.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions including Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, while the presumption of innocence continues until guilt is established in accordance with law.
Decision
The High Court made its interim anticipatory bail order dated June 8, 2026, absolute. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation, attend trial proceedings whenever required, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
The Court also clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Details
- Case Title: Tripta Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Case Number: Cr.MP(M) No. 1023 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Sandeep Sharma
- Decision Date: 29 June 2026
