The Rajasthan High Court recently expressed criticism towards a trial court for not including the 'date of arrest' of the accused in its bail rejection order.
Justice Rajendra Prashad Soni pointed out the "casual manner" in which the trial court issued the bail rejection order.
"Neither the date of the incident nor the date of arrest of the accused has been mentioned in the order," the Court said.
It emphasized that the 'date of arrest' of the accused is a crucial element of a bail order, which the trial court judge had neglected.
"The date of arrest of accused is an integral and crucial part of a bail order but the Presiding Officer did not consider it appropriate to mention it in the order rejecting the bail. This omission is significant oversight," the Court added further.
The Court was addressing the bail application of two individuals charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possessing 7 grams of contraband Smack and 7.1 kilograms of poppy straw near Pushkar in the Nagaur district of Rajasthan.
After reviewing the arguments presented, the Court granted bail to the petitioners, noting that the weight of the recovered contraband fell below the 'commercial quantity' threshold necessary for the offense to be classified as non-bailable under the NDPS Act.
Before concluding its order, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the trial court's decision, which had denied bail to the two accused.
"Before parting with the case, this Court would like to express its grave concern regarding the casual manner in which the bail rejection order was passed by the trial court, particularly by a court presided over by a senior rank officer with considerable experience," the Court said.
The Court further asserted that accurately stating the dates of arrest and the alleged incident is essential for maintaining legal precision. It noted that such oversights lead to a deficiency in the necessary judicial rigor and depth in the issued orders, ultimately failing to meet acceptable standards.
Additionally, the Court raised concerns about encountering similar inaccuracies in multiple orders submitted for its review.
Advocate Ananda Ram appeared for the petitioners while Public Prosecutor Shrawan Singh represented the State of Rajasthan.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy