Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Gaurav Kumar @ Jolly – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery of charas and opium from co-accused ganga ram. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims false implication; state cites ndps section 37. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. bail guided by sc factors: offence nature, evidence strength. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. co-accused confessions inadmissible under evidence act, crpc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. financial transactions insufficient to connect accused. (Para 16) |
| 6. no response to charas photos fails to implicate. (Para 17) |
| 7. insufficient prima facie material justifies bail grant. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
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 (NDPS 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, as per the prosecution, Constable Bunty Jamwal informed the police on 28.02.2025 regarding the apprehension of three persons at Gugli Khad in suspicious condition. The police went to the spot
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
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.
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
