Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Chote Khan alias Chotu – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail sought on innocence, no recovery, parity grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. charas recovery from vehicle leads to arrests, applicant linked via disclosure. (Para 8) |
| 3. co-accused custodial confessions inadmissible per tofan singh. (Para 9) |
| 4. cdrs insufficient without content, value tested at trial. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. parity with released co-accused entitles bail. (Para 14) |
| 6. bail granted with personal bond, sureties, conditions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
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
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 emphasized that mere allegations and statements from co-accused do not suffice for denying bail; there must be substantial evidence establishing a prima facie case.
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.
Bail under NDPS Act requires dual satisfaction of not guilty and no risk of re-offending, which the applicant failed to prove.
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 granted in commercial quantity NDPS case where evidence solely from inadmissible co-accused police confessions and CDRs (trial-stage evaluation), no financial links, investigation complete, pari....
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
Commercial quantity NDPS bail mandates Section 37 twin conditions: reasonable grounds believing non-guilt and no reoffence likelihood on bail; procedural lapses insufficient for release.
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
