Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Sunita @Sana – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), applicant-Sunita @Sana has sought her release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.156 of 2024, dated 23.09.2024, registered under Sections 20, 21, 25, 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, she is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case and has been arrested by the police for allegedly possessing 112 gms of charas and 5 grams of chitta/heroin.
3. As per applicant, the contraband, allegedly recovered in the present case, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, in this case.
4. It is the case of the applicant that in the present case, investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been submitted, before the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, H.P.
5. According to the applicant, she had earlier tried her luck by moving similar a
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is inapplicable, and the presumption of in....
The court ruled that possession of a non-commercial quantity of narcotics does not invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail based on the presumption of innocence.
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 court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
The court ruled that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the absence of commercial quantity in the contraband case.
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not meet the definition of 'commercial quantity', and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The presumption of innocence remains until conviction, and bail may be granted based on parity with co-accused and absence of commercial quantity of contraband.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
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....
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
