Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Vinay Mangal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the bail application. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments for bail. (Para 2) |
| 3. precedents cited by the petitioner. (Para 3) |
| 4. opposition's arguments against bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court's consideration of the case. (Para 6) |
| 6. court's decision granting bail. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. This 3rd bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 328/2019 Registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B IPC and Sections, 17B(e), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18A, 27A, 27(b)(ii) and 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars for more than 1 year and 7 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that previously petitioner was enlarged on bail by the trial court. After that, M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. had filed the bail cancellation application before this Court and this Court had cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court. After that, petitioner had challenged the said order before
Successive bail applications require material change in circumstances; parity bail granted on unchallenged co-accused releases due to trial delay, overriding prior rejections without reviewing merits....
Accusation of spurious drug supply does not justify continued detention when investigation stalls; bail is a right and should be granted on established principles of parity.
The court ruled that the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, emphasizing that disability alone does not justify bail in serious drug offences.
The absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the supply of psychotropic substances, alongside the bail granted to co-accused, justified the approval of bail.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial duration, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to question the prosecution's case.
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.
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
