Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Desh Raj – 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, 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 oppose
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
