Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Manu Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 240 of 2025
Decided On : 21-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for offences under NDPS Act based on co-accused's statement - No recovery from petitioner, and statement of co-accused deemed inadmissible - Court considers relevant parameters for granting bail as established in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 - Insufficient material to connect petitioner with crime. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under F.I.R. No. 20 of 2025 for alleged drug offences, asserting innocence and no recovery from him, while police claim he was implicated by a co-accused. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found the statement of the co-accused inadmissible and insufficient evidence to deny bail, leading to the decision to grant bail to the petitioner. (Paras 11, 19)
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of the co-accused's statement and the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner for bail consideration. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a statement made by a co-accused is inadmissible and cannot solely justify the denial of bail; the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence. (Paras 11, 12, 19)
Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail with specific conditions. (Para 19)
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 search. Police seized the heroin and arrested Bhag Singh. He revealed during the inquiry that Manu@ Malta, the present petitioner, used to purchase heroin from him. Petitioner had paid Rs. 12,000/- in cash and transferred Rs.5,000/- by UPI on 27.01.2025 to Bhag Singh. The call details record confirmed that the petitioner was in touch with Bhag Singh. Police arrested the petitioner. Subsequently, the police also arrested Kajal -the supplier of heroin. Police recovered 06 grams of heroin, an electronic weighing scale, and 100 Polyzip Packets. Bhag Singh also named Akash as the purchaser of the heroin, who was also arrested. FIR No.8/2019 dated 11.01.2019 has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 406, read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner is involved in drug peddling, which is affecting the young generation adversely; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. Such a statement is inadmissible in law. No recovery was effected from the petitioner, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the sale/purchase of heroin, which is a heinous crime and is affecting the younger generation adversely. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of the crime in case of his release on bail. An FIR has already been registered against the petitioner which shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is not entitled to bail, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 :2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likeliho
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
