Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Kewal Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 14 of 2025, dated 14.2.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Kunihar, District Solan, H.P. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. No notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to him. The petitioner has no concern with the recovered contraband. His custodial interrogation is not required. He 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 13.2.2025. They received a secret information at 12:25 AM that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-08A-6193 was transporting a huge quantity of charas. The police reduced the information into writing and intercepted the vehicle at 1.00 AM. The driver revealed his name as Kewal Ram. Another person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Raju. The police searched the vehicle and found 307 gr
The court established that bail should not be denied indefinitely, emphasizing reasonable conditions to ensure justice and the accused's presence during trial.
The court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
The court established that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply for intermediate quantities, allowing bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and reasonable conditions to ....
The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply as the quantity of heroin is less than commercial, allowing bail with conditions.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that the parameters for granting bail include the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and the accused's societal ties, allowing bail when evidence is insufficient.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court established that the parameters for granting bail must ensure the accused's presence during trial, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions and the concept of conscious possession in ....
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
