Back
FARJAND ALI
Jagdishchandra Joshi, S/o. Sh. Bhuralal Ji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below :
| S. No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 325/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Pindwara |
| 3. | District | Sirohi |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 16.08.2024 |
2. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.2824/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2024 but a liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again recording the statement of Seizure Officer. Now, the Seizing Officer Raju Singh has been examined in the trial as P.W. 2. Hence, the instant application for bail.
3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 08.10.2023 during patrolling on the National Highway 27, Raju Singh SHO, Police Station Pindwara along with his police team intercepted a Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ27-CL0029. Upon interrogation, the
The court established that confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and insufficient evidence can warrant bail despite the NDPS Act's stringent provisions.
The court ruled that a lack of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime necessitates bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the need for material evidence in criminal....
The court established that confessions from co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the importance of evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
The court established that for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
The court established that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
The court established that personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that mere confessions or disclosures without corroborative evidence do not justify prolonged detention under the NDPS Act.
Indefinite detention based on uncorroborated confessions is unjustifiable; the prosecution must provide additional evidence to warrant continued incarceration.
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
