Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI
Mangi Lal S/o Ram Lal Jat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused were implicated based on minimal evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for bail highlight lack of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observes evidence insufficient for detention. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. interpretation of bail provisions under ndps act emphasized. (Para 10) |
| 5. bail granted based on lack of substantive evidence. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 30/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Nimbahera Sadar |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Sections 8/25 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM2ndB No.9543/2025) | 16.07.2025 |
| 6.A | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM3rdB No.6468/2025) | 28.04.2025 |
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2024, the Station House Officer, Sadar Nimbahera, along with the police team, while conducting naka-bandi at Ahirpura border, intercepted a truck bearing registration No.HR-38-Z1117
Prolonged detention without corroborative evidence is unconstitutional, emphasizing the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial in drug-related offenses.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without sufficient evidence undermines personal liberty and violates constitutional rights as guaranteed under Article 21.
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 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 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 for charges under the NDPS Act, corroborative evidence is essential to substantiate claims of abetment or conspiracy.
Confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and the burden of proof for detention lies with the prosecution, especially under special laws like the NDPS Act.
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
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....
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
