Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Parveen Kumar, S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Khichad – 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 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 | 53/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sangariya |
| 3. | District | Hanumangarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | 8/22 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 26.04.2023 |
2. His first & second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.6408/2023 & 11466/2023 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 23.08.2023 & 05.04.2024. Hence, the instant application for bail.
3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that 31.01.2023, at around 10:30 PM, during nakabandi on the public road near Nathwana VS Villa Marriage Palace, Sangaria, Subhash Chandra, Police Inspector, Police Station Sangaria had recovered 4200 Tramadol tablets (420 strips, each containing 10 tablets), weighing 1932 grams (excluding the packaging) from the conscious possession of the accused Harbhajan Singh alias Gagu and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha. Investigation commenced and accused were arrested and a
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 for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
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....
The court established that confessions of co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the need for evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
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.
Bail under Section 439 CrPC requires corroborative evidence for abetment or conspiracy; mere statements from co-accused are insufficient for detention.
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 personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
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
