Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Arnav Saviraj Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 204 of 2025 , dated 22.09. , registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a law student aged 20 years. He is a permanent resident of Shimla, having roots in the society. The petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. No. 204 of 2025 and was unable to appear in his examination because of his incarceration. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused because of his presence in the vehicle from which 1 kg 174 grams of charas was recovered. Co-accused Kashin Kashyap, Ayansh and Srivastav were the financiers of the purchase. Kashin Kashyap transferred Rs. 50,000/- through Google Pay, and Ayansh transferred Rs. 14,200/-through UPI to Rewat Ram, who was subsequently arrested on 04.11. . The police have also filed the charge sheet. The petitioner has remained in prison for more than five months. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Money tra
The presumption of conscious possession applies in drug cases, necessitating the petitioner to disprove involvement in the crime to grant bail under the NDPS Act.
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.
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....
Vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of commercial quantity contraband absent explanation; bail refused as twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied: no reasonable grounds for b....
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as accused failed twin conditions of Section 37: no reasonable grounds to believe not guilty given prima facie conscious possession via concealment attemp....
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
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....
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
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
