Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Ghanshyam @Sonu – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant- Ghanshyam @Sonu has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.331 of 2024, dated 13.12.2024, registered under Sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, for allegedly possessing 194.16 gms of charas and 14.71 gms of opium, by the police.
3. It is the case of the applicant that he is no longer required by the police for investigation.
4. As per applicant, he is the sole bread-earner of his family and cannot be kept in the judicial custody for indefinite period.
5. It has been averred in the application that previously, five other FIRs have been registered against him, out of which, two cases are under the provisions of NDPS Act.
5.1. In case FIR No.288/95, the applicant has been convicted, under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
The court ruled that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the absence of commercial quantity in the contraband case.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite multiple cases against the applicant, and bail is granted as the quantity of contraband does not constitute 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Ac....
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not meet the definition of 'commercial quantity', and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is inapplicable, and the presumption of in....
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
The presumption of innocence remains until conviction, and bail may be granted based on parity with co-accused and absence of commercial quantity of contraband.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The court ruled that possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics does not invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail based on the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite the registration of a case, and bail is granted when the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
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
