Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Bhagwan Singh S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
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: | 237/2023 |
| 2 | Concerned Police Station: | Suratgarh |
| 3 | District: | Sri Ganganagar |
| 4 | Offences alleged in the FIR: | Sections 8/21, 25 of the NDPS Act |
| 5 | Offences added, if any: | Section 8/24 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6 | Date of passing of impugned order: | 07.01.2025 |
2. The concise fact of the case are that on 02.05.2023, during patrolling near the National Highway No.62 a motorcycle No.RJ07 SJ1165 was intercepted and its rider and pillion rider Bhutta Singh, Khet Singh and Sunil Kumar were interrogated. Upon search eight plastic bags weighing 470 grams heroine was recovered from the utility box of the said vehicle. After searcha and seizure, an FIR aforesaid came to be registered. On the basis of confessional statement, the present petitioners have been arraigned as an accused in this matter and a case under the NDPS Act has been registered against him. The first bail application of Bhagwan Singh being SBCRLMB No.13737/2023 was dismisse
Bail under Section 439 CrPC requires corroborative evidence for abetment or conspiracy; mere statements from co-accused are insufficient for detention.
The court emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction, allowing bail due to lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime.
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.
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 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 emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, upholding the presumption of innocence.
The right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that continued pre-trial detention without substantive evidence is impermissible, and bail should be granted when claims aga....
The court held that without corroborative evidence, a confession by a co-accused alone is insufficient to justify detention, affirming the necessity for substantive proof in criminal allegations.
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
