Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Chote Khan alias Chotu – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant has filed the present application, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for releasing him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 19.6.2025, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ND & PS’ Act), with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the above noted case, and has no concern whatsoever with the offence, for which, he has been arrested by the Police.
3. According to the applicant, no recovery has been effected from him. It is further pleaded by him that except the present case, no other case has been registered against him.
4. According to the further case of the applicant, investigation of the present case is complete.
5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the learned Special Judge- Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 3.9.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for
Co-accused's police custody disclosures inadmissible against applicant in NDPS cases; mere call detail records between co-villagers insufficient to deny bail; parity with released co-accused entitles....
The court ruled that involvement of an accused must be substantiated by adequate evidence, and statements by co-accused cannot solely establish guilt under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not meet the commercial threshold, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Concealment of prior criminal cases disqualifies an applicant from bail under the NDPS Act, despite the completion of the investigation.
The absence of 'commercial quantity' in drug possession negates the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail and preserving the presumption of innocence.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, allowing bail when no commercial quantity of contraband is involved.
The court ruled that the applicant does not qualify as a habitual offender due to lack of conviction and granted bail based on parity with co-accused released earlier.
Bail must not be denied as a punitive measure; presumption of innocence prevails and applicants are entitled to bail as per parity with co-accused.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
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
