Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Gurpreet 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-Gurpreet Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.368 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024, registered under Sections 21, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) and Section 25-54- 59 of the Arms Act, with Police Station Una, District Una, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and wrongly arrested in the above-noted case. According to him, he has nothing to do with the offences, for which, he has been arrested by the police. Investigation of the case is stated to be completed.
3. As per the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024.
3.1. Thereafter, the applicant had moved bail application, bearing CrMP(M) No.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Bail cannot be denied based on punishment; presumption of innocence prevails unless proven guilty, especially when the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Bail should not be denied as punishment before trial; completion of investigation and absence of commercial quantity justify granting bail.
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 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 emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
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 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.
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
