HP High Court Makes Anticipatory Bail Absolute After Contraband Traced to Daughter, Not Mother

Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed anticipatory bail for Tripta Devi after finding that 15 grams of chitta recovered from her house bore her daughter's name on the envelope, and the police had already arrested the daughter as the person responsible.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 29 June 2026 made absolute its earlier anticipatory bail order in favour of Tripta Devi, who had been named in an FIR under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act following recovery of narcotics from her house. Justice Sandeep Sharma, sitting singly at Shimla, concluded that the police themselves had arrested Tripta Devi's daughter — not the petitioner — on the basis of the envelope bearing the daughter's name. The petitioner had already joined the investigation as directed. With no material pointing specifically to the mother's culpability and no case made out for custodial interrogation, the court found the interim order of 8 June 2026 deserved to be confirmed in full.

The FIR and the Recovery at Police Station Rakkar

FIR No. 31 of 2026, dated 27 May 2026, was registered at Police Station Rakkar, District Kangra, under Sections 21 and 29 of the ND & PS Act. On that date, police acting on secret information about alleged narcotics trading constituted a raiding party and proceeded to Tripta Devi's house. The house was found locked. The investigating officer telephonically informed Tripta Devi of the intended search. She was at Chandigarh at the time. She requested officials to wait and conduct the search in the presence of her daughters, Pratibha @ Preeti and Pratiksha Sharma.

The daughters arrived and opened the house. Police, after associating independent witnesses, recovered 15 grams of chitta concealed below roof slates over a toilet adjacent to the kitchen. The contraband was contained in an envelope bearing the name of Pratibha @ Preeti. On the basis of this, police arrested Pratibha @ Preeti. Because the recovery was from Tripta Devi's house, she too was named in the FIR. Before she could be arrested, she approached the High Court for anticipatory bail.

Interim Bail and the State's Objections

On 8 June 2026, this Court granted anticipatory bail to Tripta Devi, subject to her joining the investigation. She complied. Her counsel thereafter applied to make the interim order absolute, pointing out that nothing remained to be recovered from her.

The State opposed confirmation. Additional Advocate General Mr. Rajan Kahol, instructed by ASI Kamal Dev of Police Station Rakkar who was present in court, stated that while the petitioner had technically joined the investigation, she had not cooperated. Specifically, she had not disclosed the reason for her visit to Chandigarh and had not produced any documents relating to medical treatment she allegedly sought there. The State argued that the recovery from her house pointed to involvement in narcotics trading, and that if enlarged on bail, she might flee or resume the activity.

How the Court Reasoned Through the Evidence

Justice Sandeep Sharma examined the status report and the record brought by the investigating officer. Three factual strands, taken together, persuaded the court that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted.

First, at the time of the recovery, Tripta Devi was not at home. The search itself was conducted in the presence of her daughters and independent witnesses. The petitioner was in Chandigarh and had, on the phone, actively invited the police to search her house in the presence of her daughters. The court observed that this conduct was inconsistent with a person who had hidden contraband in that very house.

Second, the envelope containing the 15 grams of chitta bore the name of Pratibha @ Preeti, not Tripta Devi. Acting on this, the investigating agency had itself arrested Pratibha @ Preeti. The court noted that by making that arrest, the police had effectively concluded that the contraband belonged to the daughter. The court reasoned: if the investigating agency was convinced the contraband was Pratibha @ Preeti's, there was no logical basis to simultaneously treat the mother as the one who had hidden it.

Third, Pratibha @ Preeti, though married, held the keys to her mother's house and resided at her sister's house roughly 4 to 5 kilometres away. The court drew from these facts an inference that the daughter had access to and control over the premises independent of the petitioner. Justice Sharma observed that parents cannot be held liable for contraband, if any, kept by their child.

The court also applied the principle from the Supreme Court's decision in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2018, decided 6 February 2018), which held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion, and that the presumption of innocence operates until guilt is proved. The court quoted Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 49, for the proposition that “the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.” It also applied the factors laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, including the nature of the accusation, the risk of absconding, and the likelihood of repetition of the offence.

On each of those touchstones, the court found the State's case for continued restraint on the petitioner's liberty wanting. The petitioner had joined investigation, the principal contraband was linked to her daughter by the police's own finding, and there was no material suggesting she would flee or tamper with the investigation.

Conditions Attached to the Absolute Order

While confirming bail, Justice Sharma imposed four conditions on Tripta Devi:

She must make herself available for interrogation if required and attend the trial court on each date of hearing, seeking exemption through a formal application if prevented from doing so. She must not tamper with prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation. She must not induce, threaten, or make promises to any person acquainted with the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police. She must not leave India without prior permission of the court.

The court further clarified that if the petitioner misuses her liberty or breaches any condition, the investigating agency is free to approach the court for cancellation of bail. It also directed that observations made in the order shall not be treated as a reflection on the merits of the case and remain confined to the disposal of the bail petition.

Order

Cr.MP(M) No. 1023 of 2026 was disposed of on 29 June 2026. The interim anticipatory bail order dated 8 June 2026 was made absolute in favour of petitioner Tripta Devi, subject to the four conditions set out above. The petitioner was permitted to produce a copy of the order downloaded from the High Court website, and the trial court was directed not to insist on a certified copy but to verify the order from the website if needed.