Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
SOHANLAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 133/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Dechu |
| 3. | District | Phalodi |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No325/2025) | 30.11.2024 |
| 6.A | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No15705/2024) | 21.11.2024 |
2. The earlier bail applications of petitioners Sher Singh and were dismissed by this Court vide orders 26.11.2024 & 11.01.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10565/2024 & 14361/2023.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned
Lack of evidence linking accused to the crime under NDPS Act justifies bail, despite statutory restrictions.
Insufficient evidence linking accused to contraband or conspiracy warrants bail under Section 439 CrPC, emphasizing the need for substantial proof for pre-trial detention.
Prolonged detention without corroborative evidence is unconstitutional, emphasizing the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial in drug-related offenses.
The court established that personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
The court established that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
The court established that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial, and failure to adhere to such provisions can lead to the grant of bail even in serious cases.
Bail is a rule at the pre-conviction stage, and denial should be an exception, especially when evidence against the accused is lacking.
The court established that for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
The court established that confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and insufficient evidence can warrant bail despite the NDPS Act's stringent provisions.
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
