Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Riyaz Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 09/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | CBN, Chittorgarh |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 07.12.2024 |
2. The concise fact of the case are that on 26.09.2023, team of CBN, Chittorgarh and his upon receiving an information stopped a person near Chittorgarh-Bhilwara Road, Opp. BSL factory, Hamirgarh in a suspicious condition. Upon interrogation he disclosed his name Rahul and during search 3.650 Kg opium was recovered from a cloth bag. He stated that the said contraband was purchased by him from Riyaz Moihd. On the basis of confessional statement, the present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this matter and a case under Section 8/18 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act has been registered against him. His first & second bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.4538/2024 & 13454/2024 were dismissed as not pr
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 emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.
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.
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 confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
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 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 bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
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
