Back
FARJAND ALI
Pala Ram S/o Sohan Lal – 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 | 92/2021 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Hanumangarh Sadar |
| 3. | District | Hanumangarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 08.08.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 21.04.2021 during patrolling Maan Singh, SHO, PS Sadar Hanumangarh along with his team tried to stop a Car bearing registration No.PB60 C2427 but Sandeep @ Sukhdeep, the driver of the said vehicle tried to fled away from the spot then the Constable Harish tried to stop the said vehicle by his Govt. Motorcycle and in scuffle Harish fell down and receive an injury on his knee but when Sandeep @ Sukhdeep along with his companion left the vehicle made escape their good and fled away. During search, 600 strips containing 6000 Tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg Clovedol-100 SR
The court established that confessions of co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the need for evidence in bail considerations 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.
Confessions of co-accused require corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without evidence do not justify denial of bail.
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 emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.
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 require corroboration to be admissible, and insufficient evidence can warrant bail despite the NDPS Act's stringent provisions.
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
