Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Ravinder 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. 55 of 2024, dated 12.05.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 21 , 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered in the Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner was falsely implicated based on the statement made by co-accused. He is a respectable person in the society and he is not involved in any other criminal case. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 12.05.2024 when the police received a secret information that accused Kishan Singh was selling charas from his house, and in case of search, the police could recover a huge quantity of charas. The police reduced t
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
