Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Dhan Bahadur Budha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 107 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 18 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested based on suspicion of possessing opium - Court considered factors for granting bail including nature of accusation and evidence admissibility - Petitioner released on bail as no substantial evidence connected him to the crime. (Paras 1, 10, 15, 17)

(B) Evidence Act - Section 25 - Confession made to police inadmissible - Statements of co-accused cannot be used against another accused - Court emphasized the need for legally admissible evidence for detention. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of opium while traveling in a bus. He claimed innocence, citing health issues and lack of evidence against him. The police's case relied on statements from co-accused, which were deemed inadmissible.

Findings of Court:
The court found no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed the offence, leading to the decision to grant bail.

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of co-accused statements and the sufficiency of evidence for detention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and the absence of substantial evidence warranted bail.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail.

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 of the crime. He belongs to a respectable family. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in judicial custody. The police have filed the charge sheet and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

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 the plastic packets and found opium in them. The opium was weighed and its weight was found to be 3.890 Kgs. The police seized the opium and arrested Jeet Bahadur and Moti Lal Budha. The petitioner was also travelling in the vehicle and he was detained based on the suspicion. It was found from the interrogation of the co-accused that the petitioner, Moti Lal Budha, and Jeet Bahadur are residents of Nepal. They are related to each other. They bought four packets of opium from some woman on 02.07.2024. Two packets were kept by Moti Lal Budha and two packets were kept by Jeet Bahadur. The opium was sent to SFSL, Junga and as per the report of analysis, the percentage of the morphine found in the opium was 7.19% w/w. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 13.09.2024.

4. I have heard Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He was travelling in the vehicle and was not found in possession of any opium. The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used to detain the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was related to co-accused Jeet Bahadur and Moti Lal Budha. All of them were travelling together and there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The police had recovered a commercial quantity of opium and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner is unable to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismis