SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.K. Jain, J.
Man Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail No. 381-93
Decided on 14.5.1993

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Applicant - Ram Rakh.
For the Respondent - H.R Panwar, P.P. & Lalit Kanwadia.

IMPORTANT POINT
Granting of bail cannot be a precedent, each case has to be looked into on its merits.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 - N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Section 18 - Granting of bail cannot be a precedent - Each case to be decided on its merits - Recovery of 18.500 kilo grams of poppy husk - Nothing on record that mandatory or directing provisions of the Act were not followed - No material to assist court in forming an open ion that there is no likelihood of committing offence if bail granted Bail application is liable to be rejected. (Paras 4 & 5)

       

JUDGMENT

N.K. Jain, J. - Learned counsel for the petition submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as he was found only with 18.500 Kgs. off poppy husk. He submits that this Court has granted bail in Zakir Hussain v. State1, where six quintals 56 Kgs. 500 gms 'Post Chura was recovered and Misc. Bail App. No. 2087/922, 'poppy husk' was recovered. He also submits that even where opium and smack was recovered bails have been granted in the cases viz. Banshi Lal v. State3, of smack was recovered, Shankerlal v. State4, where 560 gms of opium was recovered, Narayanlal v. State5, where. 1.940 kgs., opium was recovered, Ramesh Kumar v. State6, where 1.800 kgs. of opium was recovered, Babulal v. State7, where 210 gms. of opium was recovered, Vijendra v. State8, wherein opium was recovered and in Mahipal v. State9, the petitioner was granted bail who was alleged to have been found in possession of 16.300 kgs. opium as the co-accused who had 90.300 kgs. of opium was granted bail on 10.1.1992 in S.B. Cr. Bail Application No. 4252/91. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail for the last four months, so now the petitioner may be released on bail.

2. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that under the N.D.P.S. Act normally bail should not be granted. He has placed reliance on 1989 Cr. L.J. 1559, wherein bail was refused even when the opium recovered was one Kg. and the accused had remained on interim bail10. He also submits that this Court has also not granted bail even 'post doda' recovered was 160 gms. in Madan Lal v. State11, and ultimately the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the case law cited at Bar.

4. In the cases relating to N.D.P.S. Act, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case this Court is granting bails but granting of bail cannot be a precedent. To my mind if the circumstances do not connect the accused with the recovery, the contraband is recovered in a small quantify which was kept by the accused for his own use, such and other circumstances showing his innocence if satisfies the conscious of the Court according to provisions of amended Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act 9 (came into force on 29.5.1989) that there exists a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, the Court may grant Bail u/s. 439, Cr. P.C. but each case depends upon the facts of its own. It is not necessary to give detailed order while allowing or rejecting the bail application. I have also granted bail in Manjoo Singh v. State12, where 'Post Chura' recovered was one Kg. and Labhu @ Lal Chand v. State13, where 4-1/2 Kgs. of 'Post' was recovered, and in Natwar Singh v. State14, after being satisfied with the conditions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act in view of the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal15.

5. In the instant case the petitioner Man Singh and one Jamail Singh r/o. Punjab were found fn possession of 18.500 Kgs. and 20.500 Kgs. of 'Poppy husk' respectively while they were coming from Chirawa. The petitioner had no valid pass or permit granted under the rules. A perusal of material on record shows that he was asked whether he wants to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and the petitioner did not exercise the option and expressed his desire by stating that his search can be made by the police officer in the presence of Motbirs who were present, so it can't be said that at this stage that provisions have not been followed and any prejudice has been caused. The report of the substance which has been recovered is positive and the sample is reported to be dried capsule of crushed poppy. No reasonable explanation of his innocence has been put forward not any material has been produced to assist the court in forming an opinion that there is no likelihood of committing offence if bail is granted nor any averment has been made that if bail is granted he will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top