Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Suresh Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks bail alleging false implications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicant’s prior bail application was dismissed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments against applicant's involvement highlighted. (Para 9) |
| 4. discussion on evidential issues from co-accused statements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. limitations of evidence based on bank transactions and cdrs. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. supreme court precedents cited regarding confessions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's view on bail grant conditions analyzed. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. conditions of bail and court’s limitations on future implications. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. administrative orders and guidelines for jail. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge
Applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 66 of 2025, dated 18.11.2025, registered under Sections 20, 29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. According to th
The court ruled that involvement of an accused must be substantiated by adequate evidence, and statements by co-accused cannot solely establish guilt under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that statements made under police influence are inadmissible against co-accused in NDPS cases, allowing bail due to lack of prima facie evidence.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail granted where accused involvement relies solely on co-accused's custodial disclosure statement, inadmissible under evidence law, satisfying Section 37 twin con....
The court emphasized that mere allegations and statements from co-accused do not suffice for denying bail; there must be substantial evidence establishing a prima facie case.
Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case as co-accused police custody statements inadmissible for conviction, CDRs' value for trial; Section 37 twin conditions satisfied via parity, lack of fina....
Bail granted in commercial quantity NDPS case where evidence solely from inadmissible co-accused police confessions and CDRs (trial-stage evaluation), no financial links, investigation complete, pari....
Co-accused's police custody disclosures inadmissible against applicant in NDPS cases; mere call detail records between co-villagers insufficient to deny bail; parity with released co-accused entitles....
The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory, requiring the court to find reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to offend again for bail to be granted.
Commercial quantity NDPS bail mandates Section 37 twin conditions: reasonable grounds believing non-guilt and no reoffence likelihood on bail; procedural lapses insufficient for release.
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
