Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Uved Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Uved Khan has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.28 of 2024, dated 20.04.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. He has been arrested with allegedly possessing 12.26 gms of chitta/heroin.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the investigation, in the present case, is complete and police has submitted the charge-sheet and case is now fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. The applicant has further alleged that his co- accused Pooja Negi has already been released on bail, by the Court of learned Special Judge, Solan, H.P., vide order dated 04.05.2024.
5. The applicant has further pleaded that in addition to the present case, four other cases have been registered against him, the details of which have been given, as
Pre-trial detention is prohibited; the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender, and the contraband does not meet the commercial quantity threshold.
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.
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....
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
The absence of 'commercial quantity' in drug possession negates the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail and preserving the presumption of innocence.
Bail can be granted to women under NDPS provisions when charges do not involve commercial quantities and sufficient conditions are set to ensure judicial process integrity.
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.
The court emphasized the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail, requiring reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and assurance against further of....
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
