Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
DILIP VISHNOI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners arrested for possession (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim false implication (Para 4) |
| 3. cctv footage supports petitioners (Para 5) |
| 4. family grievances against police (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. public prosecutor opposes bail (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court finds no merit in claims (Para 10) |
| 7. serious charges require careful consideration (Para 11) |
| 8. bail applications dismissed (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
Order :
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsels submitted that the petitioners did not possess the contraband rather the alleged contraband was planted on the petitioners for the reason that they had refused to comply with the extortion demand of money made by the police officials. Learned counsels submitted that no recovery as alleged has been effected from the conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner-Shivraj. Even the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi has no role to play in commission of the alleged crime.
6. The learned counsels further stated that the family members of the petition
The court emphasized that serious charges under the NDPS Act require careful consideration, and merits should not be prejudged at the bail stage.
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the need for pending witness statements before reconsidering bail.
The court emphasized that the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of contraband are critical in bail considerations, and procedural violations do not automatically warrant bail.
The court reinforced that under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the accused to demonstrate a lack of guilt for bail eligibility, particularly in serious drug offenses.
The court held that jurisdictional compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial, but evidence against the petitioner is sufficient to deny bail, with non-compliance issues to be addressed at trial.
Point of Law : violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act is concerned, suffice it to note that present petitioners were duly informed about grounds of their arrest and therefore, it cannot be said that....
The court granted bail based on prolonged incarceration and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
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
