Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ramesh Kumar @ Bhim Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ndps fir for charas recovery; petitioner implicated by co-accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on weak evidence, speedy trial, antecedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial parameters for bail discretion from precedents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. co-accused confession inadmissible; cdr insufficient for custody. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. bail granted with conditions; limited to bail disposal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 113 of 2023, dated 08.11.2023, registered at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), 1985.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police apprehended Hem Raj and recovered 1.286 kg. of charas from the carry bag being carried by him. The police arrested Hem Raj and seized the charas. Hem Raj disclosed that Ramesh Kumar (the present petitioner) was walking with him, who had run away from the spot. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect
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 disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
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.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements inadmissible against petitioner; call detail records alone insufficient for Section 37 twin conditions; bail on parity where co-a....
Co-accused statements inadmissible in NDPS bail; call records, financial transactions and mobile photos insufficient alone to establish prima facie case or satisfy Section 37 rigours absent direct re....
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 ....
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
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
