Back
FARJAND ALI
Deendayal @ Deenu S/o Lichhudas – 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 bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case |
|
| 1. | FIR Number | 541/2021 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Hanumangarh Town |
| 3. | District | Hanumangarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NPDS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any (Against petitioners Vikas and Imran) | Section 8/25 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order(SBCRlMBNo.10143/2024) | 24.07.2024 |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned Order (SBCRlM2nd BNo.10144/2024) | 23.07.2024 |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRlM2nd BNo.12274/2024) | 19.09.2024 |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of lea
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 the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
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 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 for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
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 established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
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
