IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Pappu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5993 of 2021
Decided on : 02-08-2021
NDPS Act - Bail Application - The court granted bail to the accused-petitioner based on the violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the seizure proceedings, satisfying the condition under Section 37, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with F.I.R. No.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, granted bail to the accused-petitioner based on the violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the seizure proceedings, satisfying the condition under Section 37.
Issues: Violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the seizure proceedings, commercial quantity of recovered substance, and the application of Section 37 for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act during the seizure proceedings, which satisfied the condition under Section 37, leading to the grant of bail without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Final Decision: The bail application of the accused-petitioner was allowed, and it was ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the notice of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, third option was given by the Seizure Officer. Therefore, it is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr., (2014) 5 SCC 345.
4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that recovered quantity is commercial quantity. He further stated that Section 37 is clearly attracted in this case, therefore benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that third option was given by the Seizure Officer during the seizure proceedings, which is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; this Court is of the view that condition under Section 37 is satisfied in this case, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Pappu S/o Dhanraj Suthar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.