Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ramesh Kumar @ Bhim Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 a
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....
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 under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
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....
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
Bail – Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by co-accused or confession made by him, as they are not legally admissible.
Financial transactions alone do not establish guilt in drug-related offences; co-accused statements are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence.
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
