Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
INDRAPAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.60/2019, registered at Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 17.04.2019 on the basis of a Parcha Kayami (complaint) submitted by Shri Rajendra Tada, SHO of Police Station Kachhola, an FIR No.60/2019 was registered at Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara as per which, on 17.04.2019, when as per the instructions of S.P. Bhilwara, the team of Police Station Bigod lead by its SHO was conducting nakabandi, the SHO of Police Station Bigod saw an unnumbered white coloured Bolero vehicle coming from Triveni towards NH758 and upon seeing the police team, the driver of the offending vehicle turned the same towards Jaliya. The SHO of Police Station Bigod immediately called Shri Rajendra Tada (SHO of Police Station Kachhola) and asked him to chase the offending vehicle as he suspected that the offending vehicle might be carrying contraband. Thereupon, the SHO of Police Station Kachhola as
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.
Strict compliance with the statutory procedure and the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act are crucial in determining the admissibility of evidence and granting bail, despite the quantity of contrab....
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.
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 court ruled that searches conducted by unauthorized officers under the NDPS Act are illegal, warranting the grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of bail.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding authorized officers conducting searches renders the recovery illegal, prioritizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial over stat....
The court ruled that unauthorized searches under the NDPS Act invalidate the evidence, warranting bail for the accused due to procedural non-compliance.
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can render evidence inadmissible, and that prolonged detention without trial can justify the grant of bail despite ....
The court ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can lead to bail being granted despite statutory restrictions.
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
