Back
FARJAND ALI
Dinesh Kumar Prajapat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 283/2018 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
2. It is transpired from the record that the first application of the petitioner came to be dismissed on 05.10.2018, thereafter second application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 07.01.2019. The bail plea of Lalit was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 02.09.2020 and the second bail application of accused Lalit is pending yet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to do with the alleged offence and falsely been implicated in this matter. He contends that there is no evidence suggesting that petitioner was present in the vehicle at the place where the alleged recovery was made; he asserts that in fact he was faraway from the place of alleged recovery. He is innocent and in custody since 05.09.2018. He further submits that in view of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding release of accused where the trial has been protracted for a long, the in
Prolonged incarceration without trial and lack of admissible evidence can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, which can override statutory restrictions on bail.
The court established that in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not bar the granting of bail.
Extended judicial custody without trial and lack of evidence of possession justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
Custody duration and lack of trial progress can lead to bail grant despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
The court established that prolonged detention without sufficient evidence violates personal liberty, and bail should be granted if the prosecution fails to demonstrate a direct connection to the all....
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
The court emphasized that personal liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions in granting bail, especially when there are violations of mandatory provisions.
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
