Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mintu Alias Mintu Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 786 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20, 25, 29, and 35 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of Charas based on co-accused's statement - Court found insufficient evidence to connect petitioner to the crime, emphasizing inadmissibility of co-accused statements - Parameters for bail considered as per Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 8-22)
(B) Evidence - Co-accused statements - Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, thus cannot be used against another accused. (Paras 12-13)
(C) Financial transactions - Mere financial transactions are insufficient to establish involvement in drug trafficking without corroborating evidence. (Paras 19-20)
(D) Previous offences - Prior involvement in similar offences does not justify detention without a prima facie case. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of Charas based on statements from co-accused, with no direct evidence linking him to the crime. He has been in custody for over 10 months.
Findings of Court:
The court found no admissible evidence against the petitioner, allowing bail with conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence to connect the petitioner to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible and insufficient for bail denial, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 74 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25, and 29 read with Section 35 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan (H.P.). The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter was listed for consideration of a charge on 03.04.2025.
2. The allegations against the petitioners are false. He has been implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. The petitioner has been in custody for more than 10 months. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 09.05.2024. They received a secret information at 12:15 pm that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01AA-0566 was parked at Subathu Dharampur road near the rain shelter Chapla. Harjeet Singh, the driver of the vehicle, was transporting a huge quantity of Charas, and Charas could be recovered by searching the vehicle. The information was credible, and it was reduced to writing. It was sent to the Supervisory Officer, and the police party proceeded towards the rain shelter. The police found the vehicle near the rain shelter. The driver of the vehicle identified himself as Harjeet Singh. The police searched the vehicle in the presence of two independent witnesses and recovered two plastic bags wrapped in khaki plastic kept behind the driver’s seat cover. The police checked the packets and found that they contained black sticks, which were identified as Charas. The police seized the Charas and arrested the driver. Harjeet Singh was interrogated, and he revealed that the Charas was given to him by Jhabe Ram after taking it out of the pit near the hill. He was directed by Mintu Kumar to bring the Charas. He led the police to the spot, and the police recovered 2 bags. One was containing 36 packets of Charas. The packets were weighed, and their weight was found to be 21.120 kgs. The other bag contained 22 packets, which were found to contain 14.650 kgs of Charas. Police seized the Charas. Police arrested Jhabe Ram, who revealed during the interrogation that he and Mintu were dealing with the Charas in partnership. He used to supply Charas to Mintu, and they used to share the money obtained by selling Charas. The police arrested the petitioner, who confirmed the story of Jhabe Ram. The police recorded the statement of Sheetal, the wife of the petitioner, who revealed that the vehicle was in her name but was being used by the petitioner. The petitioner was using the SIM obtained in her name and the name of her father. FIR No.217 of 2018 and FIR No.266 of 2021 were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sundernagar and at Police Station, Jhajhar (Haryana) FIR No.54 of 2021 was also registered against the petitioner in Police Station Bari, District Jhajjar, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The Charas was sent to FSL and was confirmed to be Cannabis after the analysis. Police conducted a financial investigation and found that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle, constructed a house and opened an account in which huge money was deposited and withdrawn.Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
5. Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible. Th
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
Co-accused disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
Co-accused statements inadmissible in NDPS bail; call records, financial transactions and mobile photos insufficient alone to establish prima facie case or satisfy Section 37 rigours absent direct re....
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
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
