HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Ramesh
Order :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.77/2022 registered at Police Station Chhatargarh, District Bikaner for offences under Sections 8/15 & 29 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused Poonam Chand @ Prakash Chand has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.6710/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Poonam Chand @ Prakash Chand, who has already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner,
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, upholding the presumption of innocence.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
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.
The court established that in bail applications under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must provide corroborative evidence to support allegations of abetment or conspiracy, and that the interpretation o....
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 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 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 emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.