Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MANGILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
What is the basis for denying bail under NDPS Act Section 37 in this case? What factors led the court to hold the petitioner as a habitual offender? What is the court’s conclusion regarding twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
Order :
1. This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.94/2023, registered at Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur City East, for the offences under Sections 8/20 and 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 the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The contraband (Ganja) recovered, in this case, does not belong to the petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers and the statements of the Investigating Officer- Hari Singh (PW.1), learned counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on an imaginary story, as there is nothing on record, to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences for which he has been arrested.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and an accused in 8 c
The twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail; habitual offenders pose a risk of committing further offences if released.
Bail may be granted when the quantity of contraband is below commercial threshold and the accused has been in custody for an extended period.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
Bail under NDPS Act requires stringent conditions; the court must find reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The absence of direct evidence against a petitioner, solely relying on co-accused statements, justifies the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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 granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
The court emphasized the need to curtail drug consumption for the well-being of society and considered the danger of granting repeated chances to offenders who continue to indulge in unlawful activit....
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
