Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Akashdeep 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- Akashdeep Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.116 of 2024, dated 26.11.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case.
3. It has been averred in the application that the contraband, allegedly shown to be recovered, in this case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’. As such, according to him, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case.
4. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and the custody of the applicant is no more required by the police.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, th
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 meet the definition of '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 court ruled that the contraband did not constitute 'commercial quantity', thus allowing bail under reasonable conditions despite the applicant's criminal history.
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 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 court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of 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 proven guilty, and bail may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
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
