Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shubhkaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for bail based on police findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on case documentation and arguments. (Para 4 , 7 , 11 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding innocence and prosecution's burden. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal principles surrounding bail application and evidence standards. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion granting bail with stipulated conditions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
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 s
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.
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....
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'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....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements inadmissible against petitioner; call detail records alone insufficient for Section 37 twin conditions; bail on parity where co-a....
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....
Co-accused statements inadmissible in NDPS bail; call records, financial transactions and mobile photos insufficient alone to establish prima facie case or satisfy Section 37 rigours absent direct re....
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
