Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
Brijesh S/o. Ramesh Harijan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This application for has been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 BNSS who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.36/2023 registered at Police Station Jawda, District Chittorgarh for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
2. As per the prosecution, on 29.08.2023, the SHO of Police Station Jawda, during routine nakabandi flagged down one loading tempo bearing registration No.RJ-20-GA-8916. On a search being made of the aforesaid vehicle, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 338 kilograms was found hidden beneath the bags in which tarpaulin was kept. The petitioners were found sitting on the passenger seat of the offending vehicle and they were apprehended on the spot.
The petitioners divulged an information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that they had procured the recovered contraband from the co-accused Mahendra @ Member Banjara. Later on, the petitioners had also identified the house of the co-accused Mahendra @ Member Banjara, from where they allegedly procured the recovered contraband.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the pe
The court emphasized that the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of contraband are critical in bail considerations, and procedural violations do not automatically warrant bail.
The court ruled that the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied due to the serious nature of the offences and the substantial quantity of contraband involved.
Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent N....
The court held that jurisdictional compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial, but evidence against the petitioner is sufficient to deny bail, with non-compliance issues to be addressed at trial.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can render evidence inadmissible, and that prolonged detention without trial can justify the grant of bail despite ....
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.
Strict compliance with the statutory procedure and the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act are crucial in determining the admissibility of evidence and granting bail, despite the quantity of contrab....
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.
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
