Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MRM
FAISAL ALLARAKKHA KACHRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11210015240053 of 2024 registered with Surat D.C.B. Police Station, District Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 30.07.2024 and since then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the Charge-sheet is filed. The only material available against the present applicant in the present offence is in the form of statement of co-accused. It is also the case on behalf of the prosecution that the applicant was in contact with the other co- accused through the mobile phone and the Investigating Officer has also recovered call details in that regard. However, as per the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in case of Bharat Chaudhari vs. Union of India, the call details are corroborative piece of evidence and the said cannot be placed reliance upon in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence. He
The court ruled that bail may be denied based on the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant's history of offenses under drug laws, emphasizing the need for substantive evidence beyond corro....
The court denied bail based on the applicant's habitual offending and the serious nature of the allegations under the NDPS Act.
The court may grant bail if the evidence does not establish a prima facie case against the applicant, despite serious charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of legally admissible evidence to deny bail, particularly in cases involving the NDPS Act.
The court emphasized that mere suspicion and co-accused statements are insufficient for denying bail; legally admissible evidence is required to connect the accused to the crime.
Prolonged incarceration does not automatically justify bail if the applicant poses a flight risk and the trial is nearing completion.
The court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, particularly when the accused is not charged with a serious offence and has been in custody for an extended period.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail applications.
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
