Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Uchechukwau Emmanuel – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 28 of 2024, dated 21.2.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’), registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police searched a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-12Y-8814 and recovered 960 capsules containing Tramadol and other drugs. The police also recovered 22.92 grams of heroin. The police arrested Roshan Lal alias Vicky. He revealed that he had purchased the drugs from Tej Pratap. The police arrested Tej Pratap, who got the petitioner arrested. The police recovered 32.45 grams of heroin from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.2.2024. He was falsely implicated. There is nothing to connect him with the commission of crime except the statement made by the co- accused. The prosecution has not completed the evidence, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence, the petition.
2. The
Possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs does not entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right; societal implications of drug abuse are significant in bail considerations.
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal history, and potential societal impact, with no automatic entitlement based on the quantity of drug....
The court ruled that bail is not a matter of right, especially for drug-related offences, and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's criminal antecedents and potential for re-offendin....
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
Bail for accused with prior offenses requires careful scrutiny; strong evidence existing against the petitioner precludes bail despite claimed trial delays.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the petitioner as the quantity of heroin is intermediate, allowing for bail under reasonable conditions.
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the accused's criminal history and the nature of the offence, with no entitlement to bail as a matter of right.
In NDPS cases with intermediate narcotic quantity, Section 37 rigours inapplicable; regular bail granted on parity with co-accused, trial delay, and prolonged detention, upholding bail as rule absent....
The presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that release could pose a threat to society.
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
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
