Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Dhan Bahadur Budha – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner arrested for opium (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's innocence claimed (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. consideration of bail parameters (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. inadmissibility of co-accused statements (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. petitioner released on bail (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
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. 114 of 2024, dated 03.07.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable underSections 18 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) at Police Station West, District Shimla, H.P.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 03.07.2024. They intercepted a bus bearing registration No. HP-36D-1830 and found two backpacks with the occupants of seat No.30 and seat No.31. The occupant of seat No.30 revealed his name as Jeet Bahadur and the occupant of seat No.31 revealed his name as Moti Lal Budha. The police checked the backpacks and found two transparent packets in each backpack along with other articles. The police checked
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
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.
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
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.
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
