Back
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Hemraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 64/2022 was registered at Police Station Bakani, District Jhalawar for offence under Section 8 /21 of NDPS Act. Later on charge-sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 8 /21 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further contended that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused solely on the basis of interrogation of co-accused which is not admissible in evidence as same is hit by under Section 25 of the EVIDENCE ACT .
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that two other cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioner and he is habitual offender.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner and particularly the fact that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused on the basis of interrogation of co-accused, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.
7. This bail applic
The court established that in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not bar the granting of bail.
The twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail; habitual offenders pose a risk of committing further offences if released.
Bail may be granted when the accused is implicated based on co-accused statements without substantial evidence, especially if similar co-accused have been granted bail.
Bail should be granted when the accused has been in custody for a significant period without substantial evidence against them.
The court's decision was guided by the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the previous rejection of the first bail application.
Insufficient evidence, primarily based on co-accused statements, does not justify prolonged incarceration; bail granted maintaining parity with co-accused.
The court can grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Extended judicial custody without trial and lack of evidence of possession justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court considered the nature of the offense, the petitioner's criminal history, the stage of investigation, and the likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice in ....
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
