Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Sachin Agnihotri – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery of codeine syrup from prajwal's accommodation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interim bail granted; investigation joined. (Para 3) |
| 3. liability under s.38 for excess unlabeled production. (Para 4) |
| 4. no recovery from factory or petitioners' possession. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. no s.22 offence absent conscious possession. (Para 7) |
| 6. s.67 confessions inadmissible (tofan singh). (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. s.37 allows bail if falsely implicated. (Para 10) |
| 8. presumption of innocence; no custodial need. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 9. bail rule, jail exception; weigh factors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 10. bail confirmed with conditions; no merits comment. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Sequel to orders dated 30.01.2026, 10.02.2026 and 19.02.2026, whereby this Court enlarged the bail-petitioners on interim 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, respondent/State has filed status report and SI Vipan Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned.
2. Close scrutiny of status report/ record reveals that on 05.12.2025, police, after having received secret information to the effect that person namely
Confessional statements under NDPS Section 67 inadmissible against non-possessors; no conscious possession recovery justifies bail grant despite commercial quantity, overcoming Section 37 rigours.
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....
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.
The court granted bail considering the petitioner's clean antecedents and prolonged incarceration, despite the serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to p....
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.
The court held that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act without satisfying the statutory requirements of demonstrating that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit fu....
The court considered arguable points, substantial custody, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic in granting regular bail.
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....
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
