Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Manu Sharma – 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. 20 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at police station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. The police have prepared the charge sheet and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The police had recovered less than commercial quantity as per their case and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner 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 29.01.2025. They apprehended Bhag Singh @ Pinda, who tried to run away after seeing the police. The police searched him in the presence of two independent persons and SDPO Dehra. Seven grams of heroin was recovered during the
A co-accused's statement is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
Statements of co-accused are inadmissible as evidence under Section 162 CrPC; financial transactions alone do not suffice to establish involvement in drug-related crimes.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the crime, particularly when co-accused confessions are inadmissible.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that mere suspicion and co-accused statements are insufficient for denying bail; legally admissible evidence is required to connect the accused to the crime.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
The confession of a co-accused is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act.
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 the prosecution must establish a prima facie case for bail denial.
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
