Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Vicky @ Bango – 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. 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
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
