Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Kapil Dev – 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. 42 of 2024, dated 12.03.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan. As per the prosecution, 9.29 grams of heroin was found in the possession of Abhishek and Rajat. The petitioner and his son Dishant Garg were arrayed as accused at their instance. The petitioner was involved in FIR No.5 of 2024 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Parwanoo but there was no evidence against him in the said case also. No recovery was effected from the petitioner in the present case and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely based on the statement made by the co-accused. The petitioner is suffering from Diabetes. The petitioner had filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr.MPM No.1139 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on 5.9.2024. The petitioner is a permanent resident of
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal history, and potential societal impact, with no automatic entitlement based on the quantity of drug....
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....
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the accused's criminal history and the nature of the offence, with no entitlement to bail as a matter of right.
The presence of criminal antecedents significantly influences bail decisions, emphasizing the need to protect society from habitual offenders.
The presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that release could pose a threat to society.
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
In NDPS cases with intermediate quantity, bail denied considering criminal antecedents, offence repetition risk, and societal drug menace, even absent Section 37 rigours; arrest valid if red-handed; ....
Bail denied in NDPS intermediate quantity case due to prima facie involvement, prior similar offence in antecedents, and societal need to combat drug menace despite Section 37 rigours inapplicable.
The Court ruled that bail cannot be granted in drug-related offenses without careful consideration of the accused's antecedents, emphasizing public safety.
Bail denied in NDPS case to accused with multiple prior offences and absconding history, prioritizing criminal antecedents, repetition risk, trial presence security, and societal protection from drug....
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
