Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Jeet Bahadur Rawal – 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 18 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) vide FIR No. 114/2024, dated 03.07.2024 registered at Police Station, West (Boileauganj), District Shimla, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police had recovered 3.890 Kgs of opium from the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner has been in custody for ten months. The Court has already released the co-accused on bail. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and he has roots in the society. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed upon him by the Court. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The trial is not likely to conclude soon, and the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. Th
The court ruled that insufficient evidence existed to attribute a commercial quantity of opium to the petitioner, allowing bail despite serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply as the quantity of heroin is less than commercial, allowing bail with conditions.
The court established that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply for intermediate quantities, allowing bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and reasonable conditions to ....
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the petitioner as the quantity of heroin is intermediate, allowing for bail under reasonable conditions.
Bail is granted considering the nature of the accusation, the defendant's status as a first offender, and the absence of risks associated with granting bail, subject to stringent conditions.
The court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
The court ruled that bail is not a matter of right, especially for drug-related offences, and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's criminal antecedents and potential for re-offendin....
The presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that release could pose a threat to society.
The court established that possession of narcotics must be conscious, and bail may be granted based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence.
The court established that the parameters for granting bail must ensure the accused's presence during trial, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions and the concept of conscious possession in ....
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
