Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Harpal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 553 of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 29 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 224 and 225 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for alleged involvement in drug-related offences - Prosecution's reliance on co-accused's statement deemed inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC - No prima facie evidence against petitioner established - Petition allowed for bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 11, 22)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider nature of accusations, gravity of offence, and likelihood of tampering with witnesses - The discretion of the court must facilitate justice and secure the presence of the accused. (Paras 7, 8, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act and IPC, accused of assisting a co-accused in escaping police custody. The investigation is complete, and the petitioner claims false implication with no evidence linking him to the crime. He is the sole breadwinner for his family.
Findings of Court:
The court found no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner to justify detention in custody, allowing bail subject to conditions.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act vide F.I.R. No. 15 of 2024, dated 16.01.2024, at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. As per the prosecution, Sandeep Kumar absconded along with the attendant and F.I.R. No.26 of 2024, dated 05.02.2024 was registered against the petitioner and Sandeep Kumar for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). The police arrested the petitioner and falsely implicated him in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner or at his instance. The petitioner has a daughter aged 15 years, a son aged 12 years and a wife. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was checking the vehicle on 16.01.2024. A scooter came from Manikaran. The driver tried to turn the scooter and sped away from the spot. However, the scooter fell. The police apprehended the driver, who identified himself as Sandeep Kumar. The police checked the carry bag, which had fallen from the scooter and recovered 1.106 kgs of Charas from the carry bag. The police seized the charas and arrested Sandeep Kumar. He had sustained an injury in his leg. Sandeep Kumar subsequently absconded from the custody. The petitioner had assisted him in the escape. F.I.R. No. 26 of 2024 was registered against Sandeep Kumar and the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 224 and 225 of IPC . The police subsequently arrested the petitioner and Sandeep Kumar. Sandeep Kumar revealed on inquiry that he and the petitioner had visited Kullu to purchase Charas. The petitioner had got down at some distance from the place of Nakka. The police arrested the petitioner and interrogated him. He confirmed the version of Sandeep Kumar. Independent witnesses Ram Lal and Raman Thakur also identified the petitioner and Sandeep Kumar at the Police Station. A memo of identification was prepared. F.I.R. No.110 of 2023, F.I.R. 243 of 2021 and F.I.R. No.26 of 2024 have been registered against the petitioner. The police have presented the challan before the Court after completion of the investigation. Out of 15 witnesses three witnesses have been examined and the matter is now listed on 31.05.2025 for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses at Serial No. 9, 13 and 14. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect him with the commission of crime. The statement made by the co-accused, implicating the petitioner is not admissible in evidence and cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had accompanied Sandeep Kumar. He had got down at some distance from the place of Nakka. He was duly identified by the independent witnesses. All these circumstances show the prima facie, involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. Accused Sandeep Kuamr was found in possession of 1.106 kgs of Charas, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considera
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
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.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
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....
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 ....
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
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.
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
