Back
YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Shrawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 35/2021 registered at Police Station RGT, Rawli Nadi, District Barmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of information furnished by co-accused Chhaganlal. Except the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime. No call details are on record. No recovery has been effected from the accused-petitioner. The petitioner in judicial custody since 20.10.2022 and trial is likely to take long time to conclude. According to learned counsel, on the basis of prima-facie evidence on record, there is no involvement of the accused-petitioner and therefore, looking to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the matter involves
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
Extended judicial custody without trial and lack of evidence of possession justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted due to lack of substantive evidence against the accused-petitioner, emphasizing that disclosure statements from co-accused are inadmissible.
Prolonged incarceration without trial and lack of admissible evidence can justify the granting of 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.
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there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.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 has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Bail may be granted when the accused is implicated based on co-accused statements without substantial evidence, especially if similar co-accused have been granted bail.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
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
