Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Revat Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 during the interrogation, who claimed that he had transferred Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner’s account for purchasing charas. The police arrested the petitioner on 04.11.2025. The disclosure statement made by the co-accused to the police is inadmissible in evidence. There is no other evidence against the petitioner. The investigatio
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.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
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 are inadmissible as evidence, and mere financial transactions do not suffice to establish involvement in drug trafficking.
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....
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
