Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Nitish Kumar @Lucky – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ndps bail petition; petitioner implicated by co-accused (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims false implication; state invokes section 37 (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. bail governed by supreme court parameters on evidence, risk (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. co-accused confessions inadmissible under evidence act, crpc (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. financial transactions insufficient for ndps connection (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. no evidence of abetment under section 29 ndps (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. bail granted lacking prima facie incriminating material (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 45 of 2025, dated 28.02.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18, 20, 27A & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act) and Sections 238 & 249 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 at Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, co- accused Ganga Ram, Sher Singh and Mani Ram were apprehended with 3.011 kilograms of charas and 310 gr
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....
Co-accused confessional statements inadmissible for bail denial; call records, unreplied contraband photos via WhatsApp, and financial transactions insufficient to establish prima facie case under ND....
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'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....
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.
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....
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 ....
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
