Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. opposition to bail based on evidence (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. consideration of bail parameters (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. bail granted with conditions (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail in FIR no. 139 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024 registered with Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 238, 239, 61(2) and 105 ofBhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 27, 20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act . It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioners had sold heroin to deceased Ms. Precilia Chenaux and her friend Nishant Thakur on 07.08.2024. The deceased died due to the heroin overdose. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The petitioner-Rajesh Kumar is engaged in the business of Tour and Travel and has two commercial vehicles. These vehicles are hired by the tourists and local persons and the payment is made in cash or through UPI. The police arrested
Bail cannot be denied without prima facie evidence; reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements is insufficient for detention.
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.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
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 ....
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.
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
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.
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
