Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Sanju @Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), applicant-Sanju @Sanjay Kumar has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.33 of 2024, dated 18.08.2024, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Khairi, District Chamba, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, and has nothing to do with the alleged offence, for which, he has been arrested by the police.
3. As per applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and there is no iota of evidence, connecting him with the alleged crime, for which, he has been arrested.
4. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2024.
5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant has given certain underta
The court emphasized the need for full disclosure of prior offenses in bail applications, balancing individual liberty with societal safety.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted based on insufficient evidence and prior acquittals.
The presumption of innocence remains intact despite multiple cases against the applicant, and bail is granted as the quantity of contraband does not constitute 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Ac....
The court ruled that bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the absence of commercial quantity in the contraband case.
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is inapplicable, and the presumption of in....
The presumption of innocence applies in bail applications, and previous unconvicted offenses do not automatically justify denial of bail.
The presumption of innocence remains until conviction, and bail may be granted based on parity with co-accused and absence of commercial quantity of contraband.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not meet the definition of 'commercial quantity', and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
The court held that possession of contraband not classified as commercial quantity allows for bail, emphasizing the prohibition of pre-trial punishment.
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
