Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Pradeep Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 sec
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
