Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Amar Nath – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 172 of 2024, dated 20.10.2024, registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘the ND&PS Act’).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested along with two other persons. The petitioner is a taxi driver, and he was hired by the co-accused to take them to Chandigarh. The Investigating Officer did not provide the grounds for arrest to the petitioner. The petitioner has no past criminal history, and he has been in custody since 20.10.2024. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on Nakabandi duty on 20.10.2024. A taxi bearing registration No. HP-01K-4679 came from Mandi at 8.10 PM. The police signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. The driver stopped the vehicle. The police started checking the documents. The person sitting beside the driver tried to conceal a ba
Insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime justifies granting bail, emphasizing the need for clear communication of arrest grounds.
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change in circumstances and Section 37 twin conditions satisfaction; prolonged incarceration or recovery suspicions alone insufficient without such ....
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.
Financial transactions and call records alone are insufficient to justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act when no substantial evidence connects the accused to the crime.
The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.
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 ....
Bail – No person accused of an offence involving trade in a commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail.
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as vehicle owner prima facie in conscious possession of concealed charas absent explanation; twin conditions of Section 37 not satisfied – reasonable grou....
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
