No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement

"It indicates that to name any person and forward to face trial, no legal evidence is required. It is not the concern of the police whether sufficient evidence is available or not." Rajasthan High Court, in a significant order, granted bail to an accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), while severely criticizing the police for implicating individuals based solely on co-accused statements without any corroborating recovery.

A Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the prosecution’s "advice mechanism" failed before recommending a charge sheet, noting that the trial court must invoke Section 273 of the BNSS to award compensation to innocent persons subjected to unnecessary prosecution.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Akshya, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 49/2026 for offences under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and Section 112(2) of the BNS. He was arrayed as an accused solely based on information provided by the main accused, Jawan Singh, from whom 27.77 grams of Smack and cash were recovered. The police alleged that Akshya was part of Jawan Singh's distribution chain and was intended to receive a small portion of the contraband.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner could be denied bail when his implication was based entirely on a co-accused's statement without any physical recovery from him. The court also examined the systemic failure of the police and prosecution in recommending charge sheets despite a glaring deficiency of legal evidence.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND JUDGMENT

No Recovery Effected From Petitioner

The Court noted that while the main accused was caught with commercial-grade contraband, no recovery of any kind was effected from the present petitioner. It was highlighted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accomplice only at the instance of Jawan Singh, who claimed the petitioner was part of his distribution network.

Parity With Co-Accused And Completion Of Investigation

The bench observed that a Coordinate Bench had already allowed the bail applications of the main accused, Jawan Singh, and other identically placed individuals like Laxmi Devi, Shanti Devi, and Rameshwari Devi in April 2026. Since the investigation against the petitioner was complete and a charge sheet had already been filed, the court found no justification for further incarceration.

"No Legal Evidence Required": Court Slams Police Conduct

Justice Jain took strong exception to the police report submitted by the Public Prosecutor, which sought the rejection of bail in "very bold and big letters" on the grounds of breaking the drug supply chain. The Court remarked that the police appeared to believe that naming a person and forwarding them for trial required no legal evidence at all.

Court Criticizes Failure Of Prosecution Advice Mechanism

The Court pointed out a fundamental failure in the mechanism that advises the prosecution before a charge sheet is recommended. It observed that there is a recurring deficiency of evidence where persons are forwarded for trial without sufficient grounds, leading to the harassment of innocent individuals.

"There may be deficiency of evidence and the evidence is not sufficient to forward any person for trial, but would all aspects were considered in the instant case."

Invocation Of Section 273 BNSS For Compensation

The Court emphasized that Trial Courts must scrutinize these aspects at the stage of framing charges. It held that if there is a deficiency of evidence, the court should invoke Section 273 of the BNSS (which corresponds to Section 250 of the CrPC) to award sufficient compensation to innocent persons who remain in custody and face groundless prosecution.

"The Trial Court is required to look into all these aspects at the stage of framing of charge and in case there is deficiency, certainly it warrant invocation of Section 273 of BNSS... to award sufficient compensation to an innocent person."

Directives To ACS Home And DGP Rajasthan

To ensure that innocent persons do not suffer due to "non-application of mind at the grass-root level," the High Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan. This directive aims to trigger corrective action within the state's law enforcement and prosecution wings.

Granting the bail application, the court ordered the petitioner's release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties. The court reiterated that the continuation of such proceedings without legal evidence amounts to unnecessary prosecution and a violation of the rights of the accused.

Date of Decision: 05 May 2026