Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Jai Singh – 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-Jai Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.217 of 2024, dated 13.09.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case and has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
3. As per applicant, the story of the prosecution is highly doubtful. The applicant has also pleaded the fact that except the present case, two other cases have been registered against him, being FIR No.27/2023, registered with Police Station Hindwada, Punjab, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and FIR No.151/2024, registered with Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed.
5. According to the applicant, he
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
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 absence of 'commercial quantity' in drug possession negates the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail and preserving the presumption of innocence.
Concealment of prior criminal cases disqualifies an applicant from bail under the NDPS Act, despite the completion of the investigation.
The court emphasized that mere registration of cases does not classify an individual as a habitual offender without convictions, and highlighted the necessity for accurate police records regarding ac....
The court emphasized that the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The court emphasized the need for full disclosure of prior offenses in bail applications, balancing individual liberty with societal safety.
The court established that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, and bail should not be denied based on prior unconvicted allegations, especially when no commercial quantity of narcotics i....
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
