Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
KHEMA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel argues for bail (Para 6) |
| 2. bail application allowed (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
Order :
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. The order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the chargesheet, learned counsel submitted that merely on the basis of an aspersion cast by the co-accused Ramesh Kumar, the petitioner was arrested and falsely roped in the present case and no official memo of the aforesaid information was ever prepared by the investigating agency. Learned counsel submitted that surprisingly the petitioner thus came to be arrested by the investigating agency on 30.11.2023, without
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under 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.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the 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 court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act rendered the evidence inadmissible, justifying bail for the petitioner.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the prior bail granted to co-accused, emphasizing the importance of these factors in bail considerations.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for the release of accused if co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail.
Bail can be granted when the accused is not a flight risk and the case is similar to that of a co-accused who was previously granted bail.
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
