One FIR, No Syndicate: The Gang Allegation Did Not Survive Its Own Report
The police called him part of an organised crime syndicate. Their own status report said no other case had ever been registered against him.
The Court held the syndicate allegation cannot prima facie be accepted, the status report itself recording no other FIR against the petitioner. His statement to the police during investigation is hit by Section 162 and inadmissible. Handing his vehicle to a co-accused he is related to, and remaining in touch with him, cannot connect him to the crime. With the chargesheet filed, no purpose would be served by detaining him.
- The State's own report undid its case — 23, 14 and 27 FIRs against the co-accused, and none against him.
- An accused's statement to police is not evidence, under Section 162, following Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel.
- A confession to a police officer is barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a co-accused's confession is inadmissible.
- An undisputed relationship explains the loan of a vehicle, so no inference of facilitation arises.
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
- Citation
- Cr. MP(M) No. 1430 of 2026
- Case
- Cr. MP(M) No. 1430 of 2026
- Decided
- September 2026
- Outcome
- Petition allowed; bail granted
The syndicate allegation
The status report described the petitioner as a member of an organised crime syndicate said to recruit young people, create terror and panic, and deal in narcotics. It recorded 23 FIRs against one co-accused, 14 against another and 27 against a third.
It also recorded that no other FIR has been registered against the petitioner. That, the Court held, prima facie shows the allegation that he is part of an organised crime syndicate cannot be accepted.
The statement the police relied on
The police relied on what the petitioner said during interrogation — that he had handed over his vehicle knowing of the enmity between the parties.
The petitioner is an accused, and any statement made by him to the police during investigation is not admissible. In Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat the Supreme Court laid down that such a statement is hit by Section 162 of the Code and cannot be used as a piece of evidence, that a confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and that a confession by a co-accused is likewise inadmissible. Even a statement containing an admission, being one under Section 161, attracts the bar in Section 162.
No reliance could therefore be placed on the statement in which the petitioner implicated himself.
What was left
The police were left relying on two circumstances: that the petitioner handed his vehicle to the co-accused, and that he remained in touch with him.
Those two circumstances cannot connect him to the commission of the crime, the relationship between him and the co-accused not being in dispute. Handing over the vehicle to a relative cannot lead to an inference that it was handed over to facilitate the crime.
The chargesheet having been filed, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody, and bail was granted on conditions.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can what I told the police be used against me?
No. A statement made by an accused to the police during investigation is hit by Section 162 and is not evidence.
Does lending a vehicle to an accused make me a participant?
Not by itself, particularly where the relationship between you is undisputed.
Answering a case built on association
- Read the status report for what it concedes; the absence of any other FIR did most of the work here.
- Object at once to any reliance on your client's own statement to the police — Section 162 bars it.
- Establish the innocent explanation for each circumstance, such as an undisputed family relationship.
- Point to the chargesheet having been filed; custody serves no investigative purpose after that.
Source. High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, Cr. MP(M) No. 1430 of 2026, decided September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in