Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
HARI KISHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. These second applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.27/2023 registered at Police Station Pur, Dist. Bhilwara, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act and Section 477 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioners.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, the challan papers and the statements of the Investigating Officer (PW.5) recorded before the competent criminal Court, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 215.200 kgs. was recovered from an abandoned pickup vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-14-GG-9701. The petitioners have been made accused in the present case solely on the basis of FASTag of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecut
Bail granted as no contraband was recovered from the petitioners, and the evidence against them was insufficient, satisfying the conditions under the NDPS Act.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
Bail may be granted when the petitioner is not in possession of contraband and co-accused have been released, considering judicial custody and absence of criminal antecedents.
The court granted bail due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Prolonged detention without direct evidence infringes the right to freedom and speedy trial, justifying bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 37 NDPS Act.
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.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for the release of accused if co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
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
