Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
MANOJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. This 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.151/2022 registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, on 18.07.2022, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 33 Quintal 733 Kgs. was recovered from an abandoned and turned truck having registration No.RJ-27-GA-8010. During the course of the investigation, it revealed that co-accused Rajmal Lodha is registered owner of the offending vehicle. Co-accused Rajmal Lodha in the information given by him under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act on 24.08.2023 and 25.08.2023 stated that the recovered contraband was loaded in the offending vehicle by the present petitioner.
4. Learned counsel contended that later on co-accused Rajmal Lodha retracted from the initial information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and did not name the petitioner as a person
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there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.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 direct evidence against the petitioner and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
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.
Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and meets the twin conditions for bail.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial duration, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to question the prosecution's case.
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.
The absence of direct evidence against a petitioner, solely relying on co-accused statements, justifies the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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
