Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Parveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for pre-arrest bail based on innocence. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding evidence and bail. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. hearing and considerations of parties' submissions. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 4. legal standards regarding confessions and the weight of evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion dismissing the bail application. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the Police have registered an FIR no. 335 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023 against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18 , 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) in Police Station Sadar, Tehsil and District Una. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offences. The petitioner was hired by the main accused as a driver saying that he had some urgent work at Tanakpur. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the main accused during the investigation and there is a reasonable apprehension that the Polic
Pre-arrest bail is exceptional and requires compelling circumstances; mere association with co-accused and recovery of narcotics justify denial.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
The confession of a co-accused is inadmissible as evidence against another accused, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act.
Co-accused statements are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating bail when no direct evidence exists.
The court emphasized that mere suspicion and co-accused statements are insufficient for denying bail; legally admissible evidence is required to connect the accused to the crime.
The court established that statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence and cannot justify detention, leading to the granting of bail.
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 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....
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence, and insufficient evidence cannot justify denial of bail.
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
