Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Sharafat - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 428 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, with no direct evidence against him - Court emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient for detention - Cited Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 regarding bail parameters - Court found no admissible evidence to connect petitioner to the crime. (Paras 1 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 19 )
(B) Evidence Act - Section 25 - Confession made to police inadmissible - Court reiterated that co-accused statements cannot be used as substantive evidence against another accused. (Paras 11 , 12 )
(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) - Conditions for bail must facilitate justice and ensure presence of accused - Court outlined reasonable conditions for bail. (Paras 7 , 8 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged involvement in drug trafficking based solely on statements from a co-accused and call detail records, with no contraband found in his possession. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the petitioner's continued detention, leading to the granting of bail.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without legally admissible evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime, he could not be detained, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence over mere suspicion.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail under specified 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 committing offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), vide F.I.R. No. 119 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024 registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. According to the prosecution case, a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the co-accused, whereas no recovery made from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested based on statements given by the co-accused. There is no evidence against the petitioner except for the statement made by the co-accused and the call detail records. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the custody of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Therefore, the present petition for bail.
2. The petition is contested by submitting a status report asserting that the police were on patrol duty on 12.08.2024. A man came from Yamuna Nagar, riding a motorcycle at 2:00 pm. He attempted to reverse the motorcycle but was apprehended by the police. He identified himself as Kabir Khan. He was carrying a backpack. The police searched the backpack in the presence of two independent witnesses and discovered seven boxes containing 1680 capsules of Tramadol. He was unable to provide any documentation for possessing such a large quantity of capsules. Consequently, the police arrested him and confiscated the capsules. During questioning, Kabir Khan disclosed that he had purchased the capsules from the petitioner on 12.08.2024. The police obtained a call detail record of Kabir Khan, which revealed that he had been in contact with the petitioner. Both the petitioner’s location and Kabir Khan's location were found to be the same on 12.08.2024 from 11:40 pm to 12:55 pm. The police subsequently arrested the petitioner. According to the FSL report, the capsules contained Tramadol. The police filed a charge sheet in the Court, and the matter was listed before the learned Special Judge on 10.03.2025 for an office report. Four FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. Thus, 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 Kabir Khan is commercial quantity and 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
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.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
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 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.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
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.
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
