Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Mangla Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 335/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Pindwara |
| 3. | District | Sirohi |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 18.04.2024 |
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.10.2023 Shri Jagdish Singh, SHO Pindwara District Sirohi along with him team during patrolling intercepted a Car bearing registration No.RJ20-CG-1646 and interrogated the driver, who disclosed his name as Rajendra Singh and the person who fled away was Harish @ Heera Lal. During search, eight plastic bags weighing 152 Kg poppy husk was recovered. Whereafter, the accused Rajendra Singh was arrested and during investigation he stated that out of the recovered contraband 20 Kg poppy husk belonged to Harish and rest of the contraband was to be delivered to one Mangla Ram. A case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accus
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....
The court established that confessions from co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the importance of evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
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 for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
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 personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
Bail cannot be denied based solely on confessions without corroborative evidence; the accused's detention must be justified by reliable evidence.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that mere confessions or disclosures without corroborative evidence do not justify prolonged detention under the NDPS Act.
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
