Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ramesh Kumar alias Aju – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 47 of 2025, dated 03.05.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party had set up a Nakka on 03.05.2025 near 32 Mile. Gagan Singh and Shubham came to the spot from a Dhaba. In the meantime, a vehicle bearing registration HP-38J-1001 came from Kangra. The police signalled the driver of the vehicle to stop it. The occupants of the vehicle got frightened after seeing the police, and the driver reversed the vehicle. The police stopped the vehicle and enquired about the names and addresses of the occupants of the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Gurpreet Singh, and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Rohit. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 1.122 kilograms of charas. Rohit and Gurpreet Singh made a disclosure statements that accused Paras Asked them to get the charas. The police chec
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.
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 ....
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.
Financial transactions and call detail records alone insufficient for prima facie NDPS involvement or financing under Section 27A; mere drug purchase not financing. Bail granted despite prior offence....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail requires court satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37: reasonable grounds accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; co-accused confessional statem....
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as twin conditions under Section 37 unsatisfied: reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner guilty of conscious possession and likely to reoffend, sup....
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
