Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vipin Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No.15 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 8.03.2023 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act vide FIR No.15 of 2023. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The Police recovered 2.603 grams of charas from the co-accused and the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. The version of the Police is highly improbable. The petitioner was not instrumental in the arrangement of the contraband in question nor had he any communication pertaining to the sale, purchase and transportation of the contraband. The petitioner is a respectable person in the society and the investigation is silent regarding the role attributed to the petitioner. The SIM was not issued in the name of the petitioner and it was found to be registered in the name of some other person. The WhatsApp call detail
Bail – Failure to mention relevant evidence does not entitle a person to file subsequent bail application without change in circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a change in circumstances for subsequent bail applications to be considered, as well as the importance of establishing a substa....
Financial transactions and call records alone are insufficient to justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act when no substantial evidence connects the accused to the crime.
Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change in circumstances and Section 37 twin conditions satisfaction; prolonged incarceration or recovery suspicions alone insufficient without such ....
A material change in circumstances is required for reconsideration of bail applications; otherwise, previous denials remain binding.
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; filing charge sheet does not qualify as such, nor does unproven trial delay. Courts must exercise restraint to uphold judicia....
Bail denied under NDPS Section 20 for intermediate charas quantity due to prima facie possession, prior similar offence, repetition risk, witness tampering apprehension, and drug menace to society, e....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
