Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail in High-Profile NDPS Case

Court Cites Necessity of Custodial Interrogation and Initial Stage of Investigation in Decision

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, denied pre-arrest bail to petitioner Rahul Verma, a police department official, implicated in a narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances case. The judgment, dated November 25, 2025, comes amidst heightened concerns over drug abuse in the region and underscores the court’s commitment to facilitating effective investigation into drug-related offences.

The petitioner, Rahul Verma, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 107 of 2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla. The offences charged include violations under Sections 21, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Verma, alleging false implication, argued his unblemished service record and lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime, asserting that his involvement was based solely on inadmissible statements from co-accused.

The prosecution, represented by Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen, opposed the bail plea, citing substantial evidence linking Verma to a narcotics syndicate led by main accused Sandeep Shah. The case involved a significant narcotics recovery and implicated several individuals in a broader drug supply network. The prosecution stressed the necessity of custodial interrogation to recover incriminating articles and ascertain the full extent of the criminal network.

Justice Kainthla, in his judgment, emphasized the extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, noting its sparing application, particularly where custodial interrogation is crucial. The court highlighted the petitioner’s alleged role in facilitating drug trafficking and supplying sensitive information to the syndicate, thus necessitating his custodial interrogation.

Citing precedent from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the judgment underscored that the inadmissibility of co-accused statements does not preclude their use in investigation and denied pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the societal impact of drug trafficking and the need for stringent measures against such offences.

The court’s decision reflects a rigorous approach to tackling narcotic-related crimes, aligning with national efforts to combat the rising menace of drug abuse, particularly among the youth. The judgment serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing individual liberties with public interest and the integrity of criminal investigations.

Bottom Line:

Pre-arrest bail under NDPS Act and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) cannot be granted where custodial interrogation is necessary to recover incriminating articles and to ensure effective investigation.

Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 27A, 29, 37; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 111; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438; Evidence Law - Reliance on co-accused statements.

Rahul Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812582