Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Pushpendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.55/2021 registered at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 201 , 202, 212, 225, 120B read with Section 302 , 307, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC and under Section 3/25 read with Sections 35 , 25[6], 28 of the ARMS ACT and under Section 8 /29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution story, the present petitioner, who was arrested by the investigating agency on 24.06.2021, in his information under section 27 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , disclosed that co-accused persons, namely Raju Fauji, Pabu Ram Gorsiya, Yashwant Singh @ Bunty and Ramesh Bhaniya on 12.04.2021, met him at a house situated at Sangariya (Jodhpur), which was rented out to them by landlord Jagdish, on asking of the present petitioner.
3. The petitioner in the aforesaid disclosure statement further stated that above named co-accused persons informed him that while transporting huge quantity of contraband (poppy husk/straw) on 10-11.04.2021, they had an encounter with
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 if co-accused have been released and investigation is complete, despite serious allegations.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
Granting bail based on lack of evidence and expected lengthy trial duration.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in drug-related cases.
Insufficient evidence, particularly the lack of witness identification and recovery of the weapon, justified granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the lengthy duration of judicial custody.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the prior bail granted to co-accused, emphasizing the importance of these factors in bail considerations.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
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
