Back
FARJAND ALI
Shobharam Jat S/o Misaram – 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 | 233/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Pur |
| 3. | District | Bhilwara |
| 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 | 27.09.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 17.10.2023, during patrolling Shri Rajendra Kumar, SI, PS Pur District Bhilwara along with his team intercepted a Mahindra Pick-up and upon suspicion stopped the said vehicle. Upon interrogation, the driver disclosed his name as Bhanwar Lal Bishnoi and another person sitting with him disclosed his name as Sita Ram Acharya. When the search was conducted 13 plastic bags weighing 248 .5 Kg poppy husk got recovered. Whereupon, both were arrested and during their custody stated that the said contraband was given to him by the present petitioner in cahoot with one Ramkisha
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 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 charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
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 the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
Bail cannot be denied based solely on confessions without corroborative evidence; the accused's detention must be justified by reliable evidence.
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 emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
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
