Back
FARJAND ALI
Bhagirath, S/o. Channram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
(Farjand Ali, J.)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 313/2022 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Anoopgarh |
| 3. | District | Ganganagar |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 30.07.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 18.05.2022 Shri Jagdish Prasad, Sub Inspector/Acting SHO, Police Station Anoopgarh, while on patrolling along with his team near Patroda, received information through an informer that Satpal alias Manu S/o Atmaram Bishnoi had brought a consignment of poppy husk to his village in Rohi 4 KC. Acting upon the said information, when Satpal alias Manu reached towards the village at around 05:22 PM, upon seeing the police team, he fled towards the fields and was identified by Sub Inspector Anoop Singh and Constable Ghans
The court prioritized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration and procedural non-compliance.
The court emphasized that personal liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions in granting bail, especially when there are violations of mandatory provisions.
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can render evidence inadmissible, and that prolonged detention without trial can justify the grant of bail despite ....
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with NDPS Act provisions for admissibility of evidence, granting bail due to procedural lapses and prolonged incarceration.
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 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.
The court established that procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can justify bail, prioritizing individual liberty over statutory restrictions.
The court established that the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, particularly when ....
The court ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can lead to bail being granted despite statutory restrictions.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of 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
