Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Nakshtra Giri – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. police checkpoint interception (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. consideration of submissions (Para 5) |
| 3. insufficient evidence for bail (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. bail applications allowed (Para 15) |
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an 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 | 74/2023 |
| 2 | Concerned Police Station | Rohida |
| 3 | District | Sirohi |
| 4 | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5 | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6 | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.271/2025) | 28.10.2024 |
| 6.A | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM2ndB No.12518/2024) | 04.09.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 16.05.2023, SHO Devaram of Rohida Police Station, along with his team, had intercepted an I-20 car bearing registration number RJ 06-CC-5822 at Seendhari Pawati Tiraaha, Valoria, during a routine checkpoint. Upon inquiry, the driver identified himself as Vinod. While the search was ongoing, a Verna car with registration number RJ 06-CB-8260 approached but attempted to flee upon noticing the pol
Insufficient evidence linking accused to contraband or conspiracy warrants bail under Section 439 CrPC, emphasizing the need for substantial proof for pre-trial detention.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify 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 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.
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without sufficient evidence undermines personal liberty and violates constitutional rights as guaranteed under Article 21.
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 ruled that a lack of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime necessitates bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the need for material evidence in criminal....
Lack of evidence linking accused to the crime under NDPS Act justifies bail, 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
