Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vicky @ Bango - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 184 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 and 29 - Bail application - The petitioner was arrested for alleged involvement in drug-related offences, asserting innocence and false implication by a co-accused - The court emphasized that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - The prosecution's reliance on call detail records and financial transactions was deemed insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner - The court granted bail subject to conditions. (Paras 1 , 10 , 12 , 18 )
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court reiterated that bail should not be denied based solely on the statement of a co-accused or criminal antecedents without a prima facie case being established. (Paras 7 , 11 , 17 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested based on allegations from a co-accused who claimed the petitioner supplied drugs. The police found drugs in a vehicle linked to the co-accused, who had multiple communications with the petitioner. The petitioner claimed innocence and sought bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to connect the petitioner to the drug offences, allowing bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and presence during trial.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statement of a co-accused cannot be used against another accused, and the prosecution must provide more than circumstantial evidence to justify detention.
Result: Petition allowed; bail granted.
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. 216 of 2024, dated 25.11.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ND&PS Act’), registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Anshuman, the co-accused, disclosed his name by saying that the petitioner had supplied charas to him. The police arrested the petitioner on 27.11.2024. The petitioner was falsely named by the co-accused. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Six FIRs have been registered against the petitioner; however, the petitioner was not convicted in any of the FIRs. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 24.11.2024 near Chinamay Ashram. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-5202 arrived on the spot, where driver tried to reverse the vehicle after seeing the police party. The police stopped the vehicle and searched it in the presence of two independent witnesses. The police recovered 1 kilogram and 108 grams of charas. The driver revealed his name as Anshuman. Another person sitting behind the driver revealed his name as Harshdeep. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. Anshuman revealed that he knew the present petitioner-Vickey alias Bango. He and the petitioner sold charas to various people. Harshdeep brought charas from the petitioner, and they were intercepted by the police. Many online transactions were found between the accused and the petitioner. The call detail record showed that the accused frequently called each other. Anshuman and Vickey had talked to each other 24 times on 24.11.2024. Many FIRs are registered against the petitioner. Hence the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible as evidence and cannot be used to implicate the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner and Anshuman had talked to each other 24 times on 24.11.2024. The call detail record shows that they were present at the same place.
A lot of money was exchanged between Anshuman and the petitioner. All these circumstances prima facie show the abetment of the possession of charas by the present petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
Statements of co-accused are inadmissible as evidence under Section 162 CrPC; financial transactions alone do not suffice to establish involvement in drug-related crimes.
The court emphasized that mere suspicion and co-accused statements are insufficient for denying bail; legally admissible evidence is required to connect the accused to the crime.
The confession of a co-accused is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act.
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
