Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Arnav Saviraj Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the bail petition and the accusations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition to the bail petition by the police. (Para 3) |
| 3. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 4) |
| 4. defence arguments regarding innocence and evidence inadmissibility. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. legal standards and parameters for granting bail. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. judicial consideration of possession and evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. legislative standards for bail related to commercial quantities. (Para 15) |
| 8. limits on the use of confessions made by co-accused. (Para 16) |
| 9. conclusion of the court regarding the bail petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
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 2
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 ....
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
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.
Passenger in private vehicle with commercial quantity contraband prima facie in conscious possession if linked to co-accused via call records; must rebut presumption and satisfy Section 37 twin condi....
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.
Co-accused disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
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
