Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Sharafat - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 427 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 22 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested based on co-accused's statement and call detail records - No direct evidence against petitioner - Court emphasized that confessions of co-accused are inadmissible as per Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - Petitioner entitled to bail as no prima facie case established against him. (Paras 1 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 )
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider nature of accusations, gravity of offence, and evidence available - Previous criminal antecedents alone do not justify denial of bail without prima facie evidence. (Paras 7 , 17 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act, with no mention in the FIR and based solely on the statement of a co-accused who was found with contraband. The petitioner claims innocence and seeks bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner, allowing bail with conditions.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements made by co-accused cannot be used as evidence against another accused, and the absence of direct evidence warrants bail.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail.
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 F.I.R. No. 131 of 2024, dated 04.09.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. As per the prosecution case, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the co-accused. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, and he was arrested after much delay based on the statement made by the co-accused. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused and the call detail record. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all 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 03.09.2024. They received a secret information at 5:24 pm that Sunil Kumar was selling capsules outside the Mankind factory. The information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police apprehended Sunil Kumar and searched his backpack in the presence of an independent witness. Police recovered 2400 capsules containing Tramadol Hydrochloride. Sunil Kumar could not produce any document for possessing the Tramadol. Police arrested Sunil Kumar and seized the capsules. Sunil Kumar revealed on inquiry that he was directed by the petitioner, Sharafat, to carry the capsules to Paonta Sahib. The petitioner had promised to pay Rs 2,000/- to him. The call detail record was obtained, and it was found that Sunil and the petitioner were in regular touch with each other. Four FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. The challan has been filed before the Court and is listed for ofÏce report; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused and the call detail records. Both of them are insufÏcient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Therefore, 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 was involved in the commission of similar offences earlier, which shows that he has criminal antecedents. The quantity of Tramadol recovered from the possession of Sunil Kumar is a commercial quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case; hence, 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
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.
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
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 established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the crime, particularly when co-accused confessions are inadmissible.
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
