Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Revat Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the arrest and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from prosecution and defense. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal standards and past judgments cited. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. criteria for granted bail based on evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion and order for bail release. (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 204 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a nakka at Pungh Fourlane on 22.09.2025. They stopped a car bearing registration No. UP-16AX-2143, in which five people were travelling. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a backpack containing 1.74 kilograms of charas. The police arrested the occupants of the vehicles and seized the charas. The petitioner was not apprehended from the spot, and no contraband was recovered from his possession. He was named by the co-accused d
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
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.
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.
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....
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
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....
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....
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....
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
