Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ramesh Kumar @ Bhim Chand- Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh- Respondent
Cr. MPM No. 2822 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| 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 the petitioner to the commission of the crime except the statement made by the co-accused. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were present at Galu Ra Naal on 08.11.2023 when they saw two persons coming towards them at about 1:50 pm. They ran after seeing the police. The police apprehended one person who was carrying a carry bag. He identified himself as Hem Raj and disclosed that Ramesh Kumar @ Bhim Chand was accompanying him, who had run away after seeing the police. The police checked the carry bag in the presence of independent witnesses and recovered 1.268 kgs. Of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested Hem Raj. The police arrested the petitioner subsequently on 13.11.2023. The petitioner was found in touch with the co-accused as per the call detail records. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 23.04.2024, and FIR No. 25 of 2019 dated 17.03.2019 has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution has cited 23 witnesses, out of whom the statements of 17 witnesses have been recorded. The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 30.12.2025. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr Aakash Thakur, Advocate, learned Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
5. Mr Aakash Thakur, Advocate, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused and the call detail records, which are not sufficient to implicate the petitioner. The petitioner has been behind bars since 13.11.2023, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was identified by the police officials present on the spot. He was named by the co-accused, and this statement is corroborated by the call detail record showing that the petitioner was in touch with the co-accused. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
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
