Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Mintu Alias Mintu Ram – 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 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
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
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.
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.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
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
