Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
BHANWAR SINGH @ LANGDA S/O PRABHU SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. )
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.75/2024, registered at Police Station Ayana, District Kota Rural, for the offence(s) under Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offence under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is contended that the recovery of the contraband article containing 2 kg 865 grams was effected from the other co-accused Bhuvnesh @ Bhunesh Mali. The co- accused Bhuvnesh @ Bhunesh Mali has named the accused- petitioner in the disclosure statement that the said ganja was supplied to him by the accused-petitioner and he paid Rs.30,000/-. To substantiate the disclosure statements of the co- accused, there is no substantive evidence available on the record indicating that the accused-petitioner has supplied the said contraband article to the main accused. The disclosure statements are information recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by the co-accused and the same is not admissible a
Bail was granted due to lack of substantive evidence against the accused-petitioner, emphasizing that disclosure statements from co-accused are inadmissible.
Bail may be granted when the quantity of contraband is below commercial threshold and the accused has been in custody for an extended period.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
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 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 granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the accused-petitioner to drug trafficking, despite prior criminal history.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
The court emphasized the requirements for denying bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and found insufficient evidence against the applicants.
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
