IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.2522 of 2023
Decided on : 22-11-2023
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail - Section 29 - 37 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the parameters for granting bail under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act and the rigours of Section 37. It emphasized the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reasonable apprehensions of witness tampering, and the frivility of prosecution. The court also highlighted the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused and the limitations of using a statement to implicate the accused. The judgment referenced various legal provisions and their interpretations, influencing the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for an offence under Section 29 of the ND&PS Act. The prosecution relied on the disclosure statement, pointing out the house, and call detail records to implicate the petitioner. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the evidence was insufficient to connect him with the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner and reasonable grounds to believe that he was not involved in the offence. It granted bail to the petitioner with specific terms and conditions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, the admissibility of the prosecution's evidence, and the application of bail parameters under the ND&PS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of legally admissible evidence against the petitioner, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the limitations of using a statement to implicate the accused. The court also considered the parameters for granting bail under the ND&PS Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail with specific terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act), registered vide FIR No. 55/2023, dated 4.4.2023 in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. with the allegations that Police had arrested Ajay Kumar and Ravi Kumar with 1.530 kilograms of charas. They disclosed that they had purchased the charas from the petitioner. They also identified the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is a shepherd and he was with the herd at the time of the arrest of the main accused. The petitioner does not have any mobile and the mobile phone remains with the daughter of the petitioner. The call detail record is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The petitioner is the only breadwinner of the family. He would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not influence the witnesses. He would abide by the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Hence the petition.
2. A status report was filed by the State asserting that the Police apprehended Ajay Kumar and Ravi Kumar on 3.4.2023 with a backpack containing 1.530 kilograms of charas. The Police arrested them and seized the charas. They were interrogated. Ajay Kumar revealed that on 2.4.2023 he had purchased 1.5 kilograms of charas from Sohan Singh, the present petitioner. Ajay Kumar and Ravi Kumar led the Police partly to Village Nog where Ajay Kumar identified the house of present petitioner. The Police searched for the petitioner and arrested him on 25.6.2023. The call detail records were obtained and it was found that the petitioner and Ravi Kumar had talked to each other eight times on 2.4.2023 and once on 3.4.2023. Earlier they did not talk to each other. The supplementary challan has been prepared and presented before the Court which is listed for consideration of charge.
3. I have heard Mr. Chaman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent State.
4. Mr. Chaman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner is the disclosure statement, pointing out the house and the call detail records. These are insufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The quantity of the charas is commercial and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act would apply to the present case. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under:-
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of e
Dinesh Kumar @ Billa Versus State of H.P. 2020 CrLJ 4564
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat
H.P. Administration vs. Om Parkash AIR 1972 SC 975
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528
Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor
Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)
Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor
Public Prosecutor v. India China Lingiah
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. The State of Bombay
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688
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....
Co-accused disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
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....
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.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements inadmissible against petitioner; call detail records alone insufficient for Section 37 twin conditions; bail on parity where co-a....
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
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 ....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.