Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shubhkaran – 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. 206 of 2025 , dated 12.10. , 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’) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the police had stopped a car bearing registration No.TO25HP1132L in a nakka on 12.10. 2025 . The driver identified himself as Anu Kumar, the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Suresh Kumar, and the person sitting in the rear seat identified himself as Ram Lal. The police recovered 6.044 kilograms of charas during the search of the vehicle. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicle and seized the charas. The accused Suresh Kumar disclosed that the petitioner used to ask him to collect the consignment from an unknown person at Kullu and deliver it to Gurpeet. The police arrested the petitioner based on the statement. The statement made by the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence. F.I.R. No. 13 of 2023, dated 16.01.2023, a
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, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
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.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the inadmissibility of a confession made by a co-accused, and the l....
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.
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
