✦ High Court of India · 28 Mar 2025

Shant i Prasad Bhat t v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

Case Details High Court of India · 28 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
28 Mar 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
2,077 words

Acts & Sections

prosecut ion m ust first prove t hat t he accused had dom inion and knowledge over t he cont raband; only t hen does t he burden shift t o t he accused t o rebut t he presum pt ion.

15. I n t he inst ant m at t er, t he not arised agreem ent dat ed 09.11.2024, which leases t he vehicle t o Yunus Ahm ed, cast s doubt on t he applicant ’s cont rol over t he bag cont aining cont raband.

16. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court , in Ra b i Pr a k a sh v . St a t e o f Od i sh a , 2 0 2 3 SCC On Li n e SC 6 3 , considered a case involving t he com m ercial quant it y of cont raband and grant ed bail where t here was no independent wit ness t o t he recovery, Sect ion 50 com pliance was doubt ful, and no m at erial was placed t o est ablish conscious possession.

17. The Court held t hat t he m ere presence of cont raband in proxim it y t o t he accused is insufficient wit hout sat isfying t he foundat ional burden under Sect ions 35 and 54 of t he Act .

18. The fact ual m at rix of t he present case bears not able sim ilarit y, warrant ing parit y in approach.

19. Moreover, t he case record does not reflect any forensic analysis of t he seized subst ance t o dat e. The absence of such corroborat ive evidence weakens t he prosecut ion's case furt her. While t he alleged quant it y is com m ercial, t he set t led posit ion of law rem ains t hat m ere recovery insufficient wit hout proper procedural com pliance and evident iary int egrit y. 4

20. I n To f a n Si n g h v . St a t e o f Ta m i l N a d u , ( 2 0 2 1 ) 4 SCC 1 , it has been held t hat confessional st at em ent s t o police officers under t he NDPS Act are not adm issible in evidence unless t hey m eet t he rigor of Sect ion 25 of t he Evidence Act .

21. As regards t he rigours of Sect ion 37 of t he NDPS Act , t he Court m ust be sat isfied on t win count s: ( i) t hat t here are reasonable grounds t o believe t he accused is not guilt y, and ( ii) t hat he is not likely t o com m it any offence while on bail.

22. I n Un i o n o f I n d i a v . Sh i v Sh a n k e r K e sa r i , ( 2 0 0 7 ) 7 SCC 7 9 8 , t he Apex Court em phasised t hat such sat isfact ion m ust be based on subst ant ive m at erial.

23. I n t he present case, cont radict ions in t he recovery m em o, lack of independent wit nesses, and procedural lapses creat e reasonable doubt about t he prosecut ion’s case and m ilit at e against t he applicant ’s cont inued det ent ion.

24. The applicant is st at ed t o be a perm anent resident of Dehradun wit h no prior involvem ent in crim inal cases. He is suffering from docum ent ed healt h ailm ent s and is report edly t he sole earning m em ber of his fam ily. No m at erial has been placed t o suggest t hat he has eit her at t em pt ed t o abscond or influence wit nesses during his incarcerat ion.

25. I n light of t he above fact ual and analysis, t his Court finds t hat t he applicant has m ade out a case for bail. The Court is sat isfied t hat t he t win condit ions under Sect ion 37( 1) ( b) st and fulfilled and 5 t hat his release, subj ect t o suit able condit ions, will not prej udice t he t rial or t he int erest s of j ust ice.

27. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. Let t he applicant , Shant i Prasad Bhat t , is direct ed t o be released on bail in connect ion wit h FI R No. 36 of 2023 and FI R No. 40 of 2024, regist ered at Police St at ion Purola, Dist rict Ut t arkashi, on furnishing a personal bond and t wo suret ies of like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he Court concerned. The applicant shall cooperat e wit h t he invest igat ion and shall not direct ly or indirect ly m ake any inducem ent , t hreat , or prom ise t o any person acquaint ed wit h t he fact s of t he case. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 28.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2 c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A 542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29B DF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments