Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Desh Raj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 124 of 2025
Decided On : 24-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 3.575 Kgs of charas; no evidence against him except co-accused's statement - Court emphasized that co-accused statements are inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is willing to comply with bail conditions. (Paras 1, 11, 16, 20)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must consider the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and the possibility of tampering with evidence - The absence of reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed the offence satisfies the conditions for bail. (Paras 7, 18)
(C) Conditions of bail - Petitioner must not intimidate witnesses, attend trial, and inform authorities of any changes in contact details. (Paras 20)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no admissible evidence against him connecting him to the crime.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail subject to conditions.
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, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act vide F.I.R. No. 233 of 2024 dated 19.10.2024 at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. As per the prosecution, police recovered 3.575 Kgs of charas from a vehicle bearing registration No. TO424CH6911A on 18.10.2024. The police arrested Bhupinder Thakur-driver and occupant Jitender Thakur. The police seized the charas and sent it to the FSL. The police interrogated Bhupinder Thakur, who disclosed that Desh Raj, the present petitioner, had handed over charas to him on 18.10.2024 with a direction to deliver it to Sonu at Pathankot. The police arrested the petitioner. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He is ready and willing to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and 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 on 18.10.2024. They received a secret information at 12:30 am that a vehicle was transporting a huge quantity of charas, and in case of its search, police could recover charas. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police went to 24 miles near Jonta and found that a car bearing registration No. TO424CH6911A was parked on the road. The police checked the car in the presence of Mahinder Singh Up Pradhan. The driver revealed his name as Bhupinder Thakur, and the person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Jitender Thakur. The police recovered 7 packets containing black sticks wrapped in transparent polythene. The police checked the sticks and found them to be charas. The police weighed the packets and found their weight to be 3.575 kgs. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupant of the vehicle. As per the report of analysis, the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. Bhupinder Thakur revealed during the interrogation that Desh Raj, the present petitioner, had handed over the charas to him on Katola Batheri road with a direction to deliver it to Sonu. The police are searching for Sonu; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner except the statement made by the co-accused, which is not legally admissible; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the main accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner is unable to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and he is not entitled to bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the man
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
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 mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
The court emphasized that mere suspicion and co-accused statements are insufficient for denying bail; legally admissible evidence is required to connect the accused to the crime.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
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.
The confession of a co-accused is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act.
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
