Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Shubham Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 387 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for alleged involvement in narcotics trade based solely on statements of co-accused and financial transactions - Court emphasized that statements of co-accused are inadmissible as evidence under Section 162 CrPC and confessions under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - The evidence presented was insufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 16, 20)
(B) Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and likelihood of tampering with evidence - The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to show sufficient grounds for denial of bail. (Paras 7, 11)
(C) Insufficient evidence - Financial transactions alone do not establish involvement in drug-related crimes - Previous rulings indicate that such evidence must be corroborated by more substantial proof. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act based on a financial transaction with a co-accused, but no direct evidence linked him to the crime.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was granted bail due to insufficient evidence connecting him to the narcotics trade.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence for bail denial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible and that financial transactions do not constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail.
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 F.I.R. No. 12 of 2025, dated 22.01.2025, for the commission of offences punishable underSections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered with police station Dhalli, Shimla, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The recovery was effected from one Karan Sharma, and the petitioner is not connected with the commission of the crime. He was implicated based on the financial transaction between the petitioner and the main accused. The financial transaction, even if taken at its face value, does not connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. 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 party was on patrolling duty on 22.01.2025. They received a secret information at about 10:00 am that Karan Sharma @ Bani had been selling heroin for a pretty long time, and in case of his search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated Rajesh Sharma and reached the house of Karan Sharma, where he was present. The police searched the house and recovered 100.590 grams of heroin, an electronic weighing scale and a burnt currency note of Rs.10/-. The police seized the heroin and arrested Karan Sharma. Karan Sharma revealed on inquiry that he had purchased heroin from Gurmeet. Petitioner Shubham Sharma had transferred money to Gurmeet at the instance of Karan Sharma. The petitioner had also paid the money in cash. The police seized the CCTV footage in which the petitioner was seen withdrawing the money and depositing it. The heroin was sent to FSL and was found to be Diacetylmorphine. The police arrested Gurmeet Singh. The call detail records were obtained, and it was found that the petitioner was in touch with Karan Sharma and Gurmeet Singh. All three persons were involved in the sale and purchase of heroin, hence the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, 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 Karan Sharma and the deposit of money in the account of Gurmeet. These are not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the offences involving narcotics are heinous. They affect the younger generation adversely. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail, therefore, 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 as under page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to 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 manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are release
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.
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 against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
In NDPS cases, co-accused confessional statements to police, call detail records, and financial transactions alone insufficient for prima facie case denying regular bail; further detention unjustifie....
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
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.
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.
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.
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
