Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Gagandeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 104 of 2024, dated 28th November 2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 20.01 grams of heroin. The police have filed a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Solan. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The petitioner will adhere to the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. The petitioner was arrested on 28th November 2024, and his trial has not yet commenced. The matter was listed on 15th March, 2025 for consideration of charge. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 28.11.2024. When they reached near Sabzi Mandi, Parwanoo, at about 6.00 PM, HC Manoj Kumar received a secret information that the petitioner was travelling
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 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 ....
Bail may be granted based on special circumstances, such as the accused's family obligations, despite prior criminal history.
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 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 pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
Bail for accused with prior offenses requires careful scrutiny; strong evidence existing against the petitioner precludes bail despite claimed trial delays.
The court established that possession of narcotics must be conscious, and bail may be granted based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence.
In NDPS cases with intermediate narcotic quantity, Section 37 rigours inapplicable; regular bail granted on parity with co-accused, trial delay, and prolonged detention, upholding bail as rule absent....
The court ruled that bail is not a matter of right, especially for drug-related offences, and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's criminal antecedents and potential for re-offendin....
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
