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 :
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. 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.
2. As per the prosecution case, the police recovered 3.890 Kgs of opium from the bags kept by the occupants of seats No. 30 and 31 of the bus bearing registration No. HP-36D-1830. The petitioner was also travelling in the vehicle. He was arrested based on suspicion. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.07.2024. He is suffering from cancer and is under treatment at Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (IGMC, Shimla). The petitioner has no connection with the commission o
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements inadmissible against petitioner; call detail records alone insufficient for Section 37 twin conditions; bail on parity where co-a....
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.
Co-accused statements inadmissible in NDPS bail; call records, financial transactions and mobile photos insufficient alone to establish prima facie case or satisfy Section 37 rigours absent direct re....
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 ....
In NDPS cases, co-accused confessional statements to police, call detail records, and financial transactions alone insufficient for prima facie case denying regular bail; further detention unjustifie....
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.
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
Co-accused disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
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
