Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Gopal Singh – 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 F.I.R. No. 08 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in the society. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He 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 24.01.2025. ASI-Anil Kumar received secret information at 4:10 pm that the petitioner was selling charas in his village, and in the case of his search, a huge quantity of charas could be recovered. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated independent witnesses and proceeded towards the village. They found the petitioner
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 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 established that bail should not be denied indefinitely, emphasizing reasonable conditions to ensure justice and the accused's presence during trial.
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 emphasized that the parameters for granting bail include the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and the accused's societal ties, allowing bail when evidence is insufficient.
The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and absence of reasonable grounds for belief in the accused's involvement satisfies bail conditions.
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.
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
