Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Prashant Singh Urf Pappsa Urf Pappu Singh S/o Sumer Singh – Appellant
Versus
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 8214 of 2025 – 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 | 36/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sangad |
| 3. | District | Jaisalmer |
| 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 | 18.02.2025 |
2. The concise fact of the case are that on 24.03.2024, during blockade duty on NH-68, SHO Rajesh Kumar received information that Bhom Singh S/o Deep Singh was concealing illegal poppy straw in his castor crop and house at his tubewell field in Sarhad Chhodia. Acting on the tip-off, police apprehended Bhom Singh while he was hiding a black plastic bag in the crop. Upon search, six plastic sacks containing poppy husk weighing a total of 153.700 kg (including sack weight) were recovered from the field. As no civilian witness was available, Constables Shri Krishna and Babu Singh acted as motbirs. After issuing a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act, the accused consented to the search. Bhom Singh adm
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.
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 emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.
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 the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
The court established that for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
Bail under Section 439 CrPC requires corroborative evidence for abetment or conspiracy; mere statements from co-accused are insufficient for detention.
The court established that in bail applications under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must provide corroborative evidence to support allegations of abetment or conspiracy, and that the interpretation o....
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
