Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MAHENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.02/2024 registered at Police Station CBN Kota, District Kota for the offence under Section 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons namely Jagdish (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10225/2024), Nand Kishore (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13373/2024), Bhajjan Lal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13374/2024) and Arjun (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12124/2024) who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.08.2024, 21.01.2025 and 10.12.2024 respectively.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned
Compliance with mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act is essential; failure to adhere can render the seizure unlawful.
The court emphasized that failure to comply with mandatory search and seizure procedures under the NDPS Act can lead to the granting of bail, especially when co-accused are similarly treated.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent N....
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 ruled that searches conducted by unauthorized officers under the NDPS Act are illegal, warranting the grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 42, vitiates the recovery of narcotics and affects the prosecution's case, allowing for bail.
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.
Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
The court ruled that unauthorized searches under the NDPS Act invalidate the evidence, warranting bail for the accused due to procedural non-compliance.
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
