Back
DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Sharwan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No. 515/2019, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner stated that the contraband in question (i.e., Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets) were recovered from Ramzan and Bheem; that on the basis of statement of Ramzan and Bheem, the present accused-petitioner was implicated in the present case; that as per conclusion drawn in the charge-sheet, although mobile numbers of the accused-petitioner and the co-accused were mentioned in the charge-sheet but no call detail report was procured/obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; that even no Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was obtained by the Investigating Officer; that except statements of the co-accused persons, there is no evidence against the pr
The court established that a lack of direct evidence connecting an accused to a crime is a critical factor in bail considerations under the Cr.P.C.
The court reinforced that under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the accused to demonstrate a lack of guilt for bail eligibility, particularly in serious drug offenses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in deciding bail applications and the assessment of evidence against the accused.
The absence of total weight of contraband in the charge-sheet raises doubts about the validity of recovery, warranting bail.
The court granted bail due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
The court established that fundamental rights can take precedence over statutory restrictions on bail in cases of procedural non-compliance.
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
