Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Sharif Khan S/o Shri Mazid Khan – 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 second 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 | 281/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Pindwara |
| 3. | District | Sirohi |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 18.10.2024 |
2. His first and second bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.714/2024 & 10168/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 06.03.2024 & 13.08.2024. Hence, the instant application for bail.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 02.12.2023 on the basis of statement of co-accused, however he was not present at the spot thus, no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel fo
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 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....
The court emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.
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 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 cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, upholding the presumption of innocence.
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
