Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kashin Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail, in FIR No.204 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20,25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) at Police Station Sundernagar District Mandi, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.09.2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No.UP16AX-2143. They searched the vehicle in the presence of Kuldeep Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Constable Satish Kumar. The driver identified himself as Divyansh Patel. The person sitting beside him identified himself Nakul Mittal and the persons sitting on the rear seat identified themselves as Arnav Chauhan, Saksham Bharti and Rohit Kumar. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a backpack containing 1.174 kilograms of charas. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicles and seized the charas. The occupants named the petitioner as the person who had supplied the charas. The allegations are false. The petitioner was added after he was named by the co-accused. The petitioner was no
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the l....
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
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.
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
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
