Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Dinesh S/o Madan Lal Jat – 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 | 5/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Rashmi |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act, Section 307 of the IPC & Section 3/25 of the Arms Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 27.08.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 05.01.2023, ASI, Police Station Rashmi and his team alongwith another team when reached near the Banas river at that time a Scorpio came in a high speed and collided with their private vehicle i.e. Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ09 CC 41110 resulting which members of the police team received injuries and after firing, the driver alongwith another person left the Scorpio there and fled away from the spot. The Circle Officer made a search over the said Scorpio bearing registration No. RJ46 UA 0575 and recovered 24 bags weighing 4 Quintals & 56 Kg poppy husk from it. Whereafter a case under Section 8 , 15
Indefinite detention based on uncorroborated confessions is unjustifiable; the prosecution must provide additional evidence to warrant continued incarceration.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court established that for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
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 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 for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
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 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
