ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Ramprasad Godara – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
Anil Kumar Upman, J. - This Second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.34/2023 registered at Police Station Roopangarh, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 8/15 & 8/20 of the NDPS Act.
2. The first bail application (No.9089/2023) was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2023 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording statements of the Seizure Officer and Investigation Officer within a period of three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the seizure officer Ayub Khan, the then SHO PS Roopangarh has been recorded at trial and three months have already been lapsed since dismissal of the first bail application and hence, this second application for bail has been filed.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that the work of drawing sample was not done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He argues that the process of drawing of samples has to be in the p
The court established that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial, and failure to adhere to such provisions can lead to the grant of bail even in serious cases.
Procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can lead to bail being granted, especially when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without trial.
The court established that procedural compliance is crucial in drug-related cases, and significant lapses can warrant bail despite statutory restrictions.
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can render evidence inadmissible, and that prolonged detention without trial can justify the grant of bail despite ....
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial; failure to adhere to Section 52A can lead to the inadmissibility of evidence and impact bail decisions.
The court ruled that searches conducted by unauthorized officers under the NDPS Act are illegal, warranting the grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in drug seizure cases, ruling that non-compliance can render evidence inadmissible and affect bail decisions.
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of bail.
The court established that procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can justify bail, prioritizing individual liberty over statutory restrictions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.