Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
BHANWAR LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 of the BNSS 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 | 183/2021 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Rani |
| 3. | District | Pali |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Under Section 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 09.10.2024 |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that co-accused Shyamlal has been granted bail by this court and the petitioner's case stands on better footing. He further submits that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. His incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on
The court emphasized that the grant of bail is contingent upon the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to co-accused and the absence of factors against bail.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration without trial.
Insufficient evidence, primarily based on co-accused statements, does not justify prolonged incarceration; bail granted maintaining parity with co-accused.
The court established that the principle of parity in bail applications is crucial when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court emphasized that personal liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions in granting bail, especially when there are violations of mandatory provisions.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
The court established that procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can justify bail, prioritizing individual liberty over statutory restrictions.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
The court established that in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not bar the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, upholding the presumption of innocence.
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
