Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
NAND LAL @ NANDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
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.27/2023 registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused persons namely Hari Kishan (S.B. Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.13175/2024) and Kalu Mohammad (S.B. Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.1019/2025) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner Nand Lal @ Nanda is that he was escorting the pick-up vehicle having registration No.RJ-14-GG-9701 loaded with contraband (poppy husk/straw) on the date of the alleged incident. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not worse than the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petiti
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient grounds for continued detention based on the nature of the charges and comparison with a co-accused already granted bail.
Bail may be granted when the petitioner is not in possession of contraband and co-accused have been released, considering judicial custody and absence of criminal antecedents.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for the release of accused if co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail.
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....
Bail granted as no contraband was recovered from the petitioners, and the evidence against them was insufficient, satisfying the conditions under the NDPS Act.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail.
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 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.
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
