Back
FARJAND ALI
Rakesh S/o Shri Mangilal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 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 | 69/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Rathanjana |
| 3. | District | Pratapgarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 20.08.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 26.04.2023 shri Devilal, SHO Rathanjana, Pratapnagar along with him team during patrolling upon suspicion, intercepted a Motorcycle and interrogated the driver, who disclosed his name as Om Prakash and during search, three plastic bags weighing 3kg 800 gms opium was recovered from the dickey of the vehicle. Whereafter, the accused Om Prakash was arrested and during investigation, he stated that he purchased the said contraband from one Rakesh. A case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused Om Prakash.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner
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 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 established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
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 emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
Confessions of co-accused require corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without evidence do not justify denial of bail.
The court established that mere confessions or disclosures without corroborative evidence do not justify prolonged detention 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.
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
