Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Pradeep Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 207 of 2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 18 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested based on call details and co-accused's statement - No direct recovery from petitioner - Court emphasized that co-accused's confession is inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - Parameters for granting bail considered, including the nature of accusations and the absence of substantial evidence against the petitioner. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 16, 17)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court must ensure that conditions imposed facilitate justice and do not impede the investigation or trial. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for alleged involvement in drug trafficking, based solely on call records and statements from a co-accused who was found with opium. The petitioner claimed innocence and lack of direct evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner was insufficient for denial of bail, primarily relying on inadmissible statements from the co-accused and call records.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence for bail denial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the confession of a co-accused cannot be used against another accused, and the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for denying bail under the NDPS Act.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that an FIR No. 69/2024 dated 06.08.2024 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Police Station, Kandaghat District, Solan, HP. As per the prosecution, 4.12 kg of opium was recovered from the co-accused, and the police did not make any recovery from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested based on the telephonic conversation with the co-accused. The police relied upon the Customer Application Form (CAF) of another person by asserting that the petitioner was using the number. There is no money transaction or financial transaction between the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner has an aged father, brother, wife and six children. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. 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 06.08.2024. The Police received a secret information at 10:30 that one person was transporting a huge quantity of opium. The information was credible. The police reduced it to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police apprehended one person, who identified himself as Jai Bahadur, in the presence of independent witnesses. He opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. A search of his backpack was conducted, and 4.12 Kg of opium was found in it. The Police seized the opium and arrested Jai Bahadur. He revealed during the interrogation that he and the petitioner, Pradeep Chand, had brought opium from Nepal. The Police analysed the call details record and found that the petitioner had stayed at Kullu with effect from 10.07.2024 till 28.07.2024. The petitioner called Jai Bahadur every hour on the date of the incident to know about his destination. He switched off his mobile phone after Jai Bahadur was arrested. Police arrested the petitioner and sent the opium to FSL. It was confirmed to be opium after analysis. The police conducted the investigation and filed a chargesheet before the learned Special Judge, Solan. The matter was listed for consideration of a charge on 06.03.2025; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Ms Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/state.
4. Ms Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the call detail record of some Govind. The police have failed to connect Govind with the petitioner. The call detail record is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused. The co-accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of opium. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case, and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given a 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 wh
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.
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.
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 of co-accused are inadmissible as evidence under Section 162 CrPC; financial transactions alone do not suffice to establish involvement in drug-related crimes.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
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
