Shimla, August 1, 2025
In a firm stand for procedural fairness and constitutional liberty, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a person cannot be detained under the NDPS Act merely on the assumption that a blood sample might indicate heroin consumption.
The judgment came as the Court heard a bail plea of a man arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The only basis for his continued detention was the seizure of his blood sample, which was still pending forensic examination. No physical contraband was found in his possession.
Delivering the order, the Court made it clear that the criminal justice system cannot rely on presumptive guilt or scientific uncertainty to justify incarceration. The bench remarked:
“You cannot curtail liberty based on what a report might say tomorrow. Bail jurisprudence demands something more than a guesswork.”
The Court highlighted that in the absence of any concrete evidence such as seizure of heroin or direct involvement in trafficking holding the accused in custody violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In the present case, the investigating agency had drawn a blood sample from the accused and used it to argue that he should remain behind bars while awaiting toxicology results.
However, the Court was unconvinced. It noted that:
• The presence of heroin in the bloodstream, even if eventually confirmed, would not by itself prove illegal possession or trafficking.
• The NDPS Act is strict, but not lawless and procedural safeguards cannot be ignored.
• Continued custody without primary incriminating material violates the presumption of innocence.
The Court also addressed a practical but crucial issue: forensic delays. Laboratories often take weeks or even months to process drug-related blood samples. If every accused were to be jailed until reports arrived, it would amount to punishment before proof something the criminal justice system is not designed to allow.
“The investigation cannot proceed at the cost of individual freedom. Liberty lost in anticipation of evidence is liberty denied,” the Court noted.
The Court allowed the bail plea, placing the accused under strict conditions, including:
• Regular attendance during trial,
• No tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and
• Cooperation with ongoing investigation.
It also granted liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if credible material emerges in the future linking the accused to a larger narcotics operation.
