Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Surendra, S/o. Gopilal Rayka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
(Kuldeep Mathur, J.)
1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.117/2024 registered at Police Station Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. At the outset, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press the bail application qua petitioner No.1 Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayka. He thus craves leave of the Court to file a fresh bail application qua the petitioner No.1 Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayka after the statements of the Investigating Officer are recorded before the competent criminal Court.
4. So far as petitioner No.2 Gagan S/o Bagduram Rayka is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, a police team of S.H.O., Nimbahera on 07.03.2024, during routine nakabandi of the area falling under the jurisdiction flagged down one Innova Car be
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.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and lack of prior similar cases.
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.
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.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
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
