Back
FARJAND ALI
Ram Kishan Jat S/o Ramchandra Jat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case |
|
| 1. | FIR Number | 233/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Pur |
| 3. | District | Bhilwara |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 27.09.2024 |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made accused based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Shobharam (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12653 /2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2024. He further submits that case of the p
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
The court established that confessions from co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the importance of evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
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 ruled that a lack of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime necessitates bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the need for material evidence in criminal....
The court established that for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction, allowing bail due to lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Indefinite detention based on uncorroborated confessions is unjustifiable; the prosecution must provide additional evidence to warrant continued incarceration.
Confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and the burden of proof for detention lies with the prosecution, especially under special laws like 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
