Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ravinder Singh @ Shyamu – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ndps bail petition and prosecution's factual status report. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' arguments on parity and section 37 rigours. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. supreme court principles for judicious bail grant. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. co-accused confessions inadmissible under evidence act. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. precedents hold cdr and disclosures insufficient for denial. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. section 27a inapplicable without specific activity proof. (Para 16) |
| 7. bail granted on parity with co-accused. (Para 17) |
| 8. petitioner released on bail with conditions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 45/2025, dated 28.02.2025, registered at Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18, 20, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent, and he was arrested on 13.03.2025. The police have filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. The matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 26.11.2025. The prosecution has cited 50
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....
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....
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 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'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 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 ....
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
