Back
FARJAND ALI
Swaroopchand S/o Sh. Mangaram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
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 | 53/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Chunawad |
| 3. | District | Ganganagar |
| 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 | 31.07.2024 |
2. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.4984/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 but a liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again filing the challan papers. Now, the Investigating Officer has submitted filed final report. Hence, the instant application for bail.
3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 09.04.2024 during patrolling, when Rajeev Royal, SHO, Police Station along with his police team reached near the Circle 19 GG, 20 GG 2 LL then they saw a person having a brown bag in his hand was coming from 2 LL, on seeing the police party, he tried to escape but upon suspicion
Confessions of co-accused require corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without evidence do not justify denial of bail.
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 of co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the need for evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
Confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and the burden of proof for detention lies with the prosecution, especially under special laws like 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 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....
Bail cannot be denied based solely on confessions without corroborative evidence; the accused's detention must be justified by reliable evidence.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction, allowing bail due to lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
The court established that mere confessions or disclosures without corroborative evidence do not justify prolonged detention under the NDPS Act.
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
