Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Kanhaiya Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 4912 of 2022
Decided On : 23-05-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Application - The court allowed the third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the fact that the SIM card recovered did not belong to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of the second bail application. The petitioner was in custody in connection with an offense under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS act. The Investigating officer's statement revealed that the SIM card recovered did not belong to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the arguments, found that there was no evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the lack of evidence connecting him with the recovery of contraband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the fact that the SIM card recovered did not belong to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The third bail application was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.12/2020, Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS act.
2. The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 19.08.2021 by this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after dismissal of the second bail application of the petitioner, the statements of Seizure Officer and Investigating officer have been recorded before learned trial court as PW1 and PW2 respectively. as per the statement of PW2 Gautam Dotasara who is the Investigating officer, it has come on record that the SIM of the mobile recovered in the present case is registered in the name of Kanhaiya Lal S/o Hazari Lal and not in the name of the petitioner who is Kanhaiya Lal @ Kana S/o Bhuraji.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the call details in the present case, there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the recovery of the contraband in question and even the SIM of the recovered mobile does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner was neither present at the place of recovery nor any recovery has been effected from him. No case of like nature is pending/decided against the present petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
7. Consequently, the third bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Kanhaiya Lal @ Kana S/o Bhuraji, arrested in connection with FIR No.12/2020, Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees: One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees:Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband drugs and the petitioner's prolonged incarceration.
The decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the absence of crucial evidence, as well as the absence of pending or decide....
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offense and the fact that the co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.
The decision was based on the lack of credible evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the expected lengthy trial duration.
The court considered the absence of the accused at the spot of contraband recovery and the sale of the vehicle in which the contraband was found as grounds for granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on absence of recovery of contraband from the petitioner's possession and reliance on the statement of co-accused for implication.
The court's decision was influenced by the similarity of the petitioner's case to the co-accused who had been granted bail and the absence of recovery of contraband from the petitioner's possession, ....
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the present situation of the country due to the pandemic of corona virus (COVID-19).
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
