Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vehicle interception and charas recovery; petitioner linked by co-accused (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties contend on evidence sufficiency for bail (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. supreme court bail parameters: offence nature, evidence, risks (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. co-accused confessions inadmissible under evidence act, crpc (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. cdr, locations unreliable for proving involvement (Para 15) |
| 6. no prima facie case; s.37 ndps inapplicable; roots reduce risk (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. bail granted with conditions; observations limited (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 06/2025, dated 25.01.2025, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS). Act.
2. It has been asserted that the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44-5331 on 24.01.2025 at about 12:15 pm. The driver fled away from the spot and could not be apprehended. Shobi Ram was found to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The police contacted him,
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 under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
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....
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.
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
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 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 against petitioner; call detail records alone insufficient for Section 37 twin conditions; bail on parity where co-a....
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
