Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Paras – 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 vide FIR No. 36 of 2024, dated 27.2.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is innocent, and he has not committed any offence. No recovery was effected from the petitioner, and there is nothing to connect him with the commission of crime. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Salogra. He has deep roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 27.2.2024. The matter was listed on 19.12.2024 for the service of accused Mohammad Khalid. There is no likelihood of the early commencement of the trial. FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 6.6.2022, was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty o
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the crime, particularly when co-accused confessions are inadmissible.
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
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....
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
Statements of co-accused are inadmissible as evidence under Section 162 CrPC; financial transactions alone do not suffice to establish involvement in drug-related crimes.
Bail cannot be denied without prima facie evidence; reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements is insufficient for detention.
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.
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 ....
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
