Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims innocence (Para 4) |
| 2. state argues sufficient material (Para 5) |
| 3. consideration of bail parameters (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. financial transactions insufficient (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. petitioner granted bail (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
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. 162 of 2024, dated 25.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable underSections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty. The petitioner has no nexus with the contraband. He has been implicated based on a financial transaction of Rs. 27,000/- The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Niyati Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate Gener
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
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 ....
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
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.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the l....
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
