Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Harpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 p
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
