Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Mukesh Menariya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
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.200/2021 registered at Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara for offence under Section 8/29 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 Rajmal @ Raju Banjara has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.5233/2023 and an another co-accused Ishwar Lal Gurjar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.5629/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co- accused who have 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
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.
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.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding authorized officers conducting searches renders the recovery illegal, prioritizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial over stat....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
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.
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 unauthorized searches under the NDPS Act invalidate the evidence, warranting bail for the accused due to procedural non-compliance.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration without trial.
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
