Back
FARJAND ALI
Pura Ram S/o Bhinya Ram Jat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 243/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Nimbahera Sadar |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh |
| 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 (SBCRLM 3rd B No.10158/2024) | 18.07.2024 |
| 6.A | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM 2nd B No.10860/2024) | 02.08.2024 |
2. The first and second bail applications of petitioner- Pura Ram came to be dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 22.02.2024 & 21.03.2024 passed in SBCRLMB Nos.13190/2023 & 3568/2024 whereas first bail application of the petitioner Rakesh was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.1373/2024. While dismissing the earlier bail application, this Court afforded liberty to the petitioner to renew their prayer for bail after recording the
The court established that mere confessions or disclosures without corroborative evidence do not justify prolonged detention under 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....
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.
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 emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
The court established that for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
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 personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
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
