Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Puneet Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Puneet Mahajan has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No. 170 of 2023, dated 5.11.2023, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), registered with Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P.
2. The applicant has pleaded the fact that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever, with the offence, for which, he has been arrested, by the police.
3. Apart from this, the applicant has put forward the fact that in this case, chances of conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, in near future are not so bright. As such, according to him, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him, in the judicial custody.
4. According to the applicant, the contraband, allegedly recovered from his possession, does not fall within the definition of ‘commercial quantity’, as such, rigors of Section 37 are not applicable, in the present case.
5. Apart from this, th
The court emphasized that mere registration of cases does not classify an individual as a habitual offender without convictions, and highlighted the necessity for accurate police records regarding ac....
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
Pre-trial detention is prohibited; the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender, and the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
Bail must not be denied as a punitive measure; presumption of innocence prevails and applicants are entitled to bail as per parity with co-accused.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, allowing bail when no commercial quantity of contraband is involved.
Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial....
Bail granted in non-commercial quantity NDPS case despite multiple prior cases without convictions, due to trial delays causing pre-trial punishment, with conditions mitigating risks.
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
