Back
FARJAND ALI
Vinod, S/o. Shri Udaylal – 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 | 74/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Rohida |
| 3. | District | Sirohi |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any |
|
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 30.05.2023 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 16.05.2023 Shri Devaram Sub- Inspector, PS Rohida, Sirohi along with him team during patrolling, intercepted I-20 Car bearing registration No.RJ06 CC5822 and interrogated the driver, who disclosed his name as Vinod and at that time one another Verna Car bearing registration No. RJ06 CB8260 came there but on seeing the police team, the driver of the Verna Car escaped from the spot and the other person sitting therein disclosed his name as Pawan Choubisa, who further stated that the person who escaped was Nakshtra Giri R/o Chittorgarh. When the driver of I-20 i.e. Vinod was furthe
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
Indefinite detention based on uncorroborated confessions is unjustifiable; the prosecution must provide additional evidence to warrant continued incarceration.
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 the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail 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 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 emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
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.
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
