Court emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the necessity of individual liberty in the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the contraband.
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Sharma, has granted absolute anticipatory bail to Tripta Devi, who was implicated in a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The decision comes after thorough scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the recovery of contraband from her residence, which led to the initial registration of an FIR against her.
On May 27, 2026, the local police, acting on a tip-off, conducted a raid at Tripta Devi's house in Kangra District, where they discovered 15 grams of 'chitta' (a form of heroin). The contraband was reportedly found concealed under the roof slates of a toilet adjacent to the kitchen. During the search, Tripta Devi was not present; instead, her daughters, Pratibha @ Preeti and Pratiksha Sharma, were at the scene and facilitated the search. Notably, an envelope containing the contraband bore the name of Pratibha @ Preeti, leading to her immediate arrest.
Despite the recovery of narcotics from her residence, the court found no grounds to justify custodial interrogation for Tripta Devi. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that the evidence primarily pointed towards her daughter, who had already been apprehended. The court noted the absence of any direct evidence linking Tripta Devi to the illegal trade of narcotics, reinforcing the principle that parents cannot be automatically held accountable for the actions of their children.
Justice Sharma underscored the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that presumes innocence until proven guilty. The court reiterated that bail, not jail, is the norm, except under extraordinary circumstances. This stance aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, emphasizing individual liberty and the presumption of innocence as core tenets of justice.
The court also set specific conditions for the bail, including cooperation with ongoing investigations, attending court hearings, and not leaving the country without permission. Tripta Devi is warned against any misuse of her liberty, which could result in the cancellation of her bail.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual freedoms against unwarranted detentions based on suspicion. It reiterates the necessity for evidence-based prosecution and highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of individuals against the backdrop of criminal investigations.
Bottom line:-
Anticipatory bail can be made absolute if the petitioner has joined the investigation, no custodial interrogation is required, and there is no evidence directly linking the petitioner to the contraband recovered from their premises.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 21, 29
Tripta Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2931900
