Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Hira Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Hira Lal has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.37 of 2025, dated 11.02.2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 132, 121(2), 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case and has been arrested by the police.
3. Applicant is stated to be in judicial custody and the investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed.
4. According to the applicant, he is a law-abiding citizen and after completion of the investigation, his custodial interrogation is no longer required by the police, in this case.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Division Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. However, the
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited and that the presumption of innocence must be upheld, allowing bail when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The presumption of innocence mandates that an accused cannot be held in custody indefinitely without evidence, and bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
The court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the lack of necessity for continued custody after investigation completion.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite the registration of a case, and bail is granted when the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
The court ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
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 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 court ruled that the applicant's possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics allows for bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
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
