Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Pardeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery of excess codeine syrup from co-accused room. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. occupancy implies liability under section 29 ndps. (Para 4) |
| 3. no conscious possession; trial to determine manufacturing origin. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. section 67 ndps confessions inadmissible per tofan singh. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. bail under section 37 if falsely implicated; innocence presumed. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. bail rule, jail exception; consider tampering risk. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. regular bail granted with conditions and caveats. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Bail petitioner, namely Pardeep Kumar, who is behind the bars since 11.12.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.301 dated 05.12.2025, under Sections 22 and 29 of ND & PS Act, registered at PS Baddi, District Solan, HP.
2. In terms of order dated 27.02.2026, respondent/State filed status report and SI Vipan Kumar, Additional SHO PS Baddi, District Solan, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of status report/ record reveals that on 05.12.2025, police, after having received sec
Confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS inadmissible against accused; no conscious possession means no Section 22 case; bail grantable in commercial quantity despite Section 37 if false implica....
Confessional statements under NDPS Section 67 inadmissible against non-possessors; no conscious possession recovery justifies bail grant despite commercial quantity, overcoming Section 37 rigours.
Bail should not be denied solely based on co-accused statements without sufficient evidence; the presumption of innocence persists until proven guilty, emphasizing that the general rule favors bail.
(1) Bail – Freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt is yet to be proved – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.(2) There is no comp....
The court granted bail considering the petitioner's clean antecedents and prolonged incarceration, despite the serious charges under the NDPS Act.
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of substantial custody and the admissibility and veracity of disclosure statements in bail applications under the NDPS Act.
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
