HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 4780/2021
Decided On : 08-03-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the implications of the NDPS Act, particularly focusing on the possession and sale of contraband, as well as the relevance of call detail reports in connecting the accused with co-accused. The court also considered the potential alteration of charges at any stage by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving offences under the NDPS Act and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's involvement was based on the possession and sale of contraband, as well as call detail reports connecting the petitioner with a co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court, while acknowledging the commercial quantity of the recovered contraband and the petitioner's possession and sale of the alleged vehicle, declined to grant bail. The court emphasized that the charges could be altered at any stage by the trial court and expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. However, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial due to the petitioner's medical condition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's connection to the contraband and co-accused, the commercial quantity of the recovered contraband, and the potential alteration of charges by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the commercial quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's possession and sale of the alleged vehicle, and the potential alteration of charges by the trial court. The court emphasized the need for expedited trial due to the petitioner's medical condition.
Final Decision: The third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to expedite the trial considering the petitioner's medical condition.
JUDGMENT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present third 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. 147/2018, Police Station Anadra, District Sirohi, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that first bail application (No. 14884/2019) was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 06.03.2020; thereafter, second bail application was (No. 7446/2020) was dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of the statement of the Investigating Officer; thereafter, statement of the Investigating Officer, Prabhu Lal has been recorded as PW. 5; as per prosecution, alleged contraband-poppy husk weighing 119 kgs. 300 gms. have been recovered in the present case on 20.10.2018; as per Seizure Memo at page No. 39 of the charge-sheet, contraband has been recovered from an abandoned car; no-one has been arrested from the place of recovery; as per prosecution, two persons ran away from the place of recovery; no identification parade has been conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer; during recording of the statement, Investigating Officer stated that registered owner of the alleged vehicle is co-accused, Mahendra Bhavat who has been arrested on 12.05.2019, he has stated that the alleged vehicle has been sold to the present petitioner, Mukesh Kumar; as per the arrest memo, the present petitioner has also been arrested on the same day, i.e., 12.05.2019; petitioner has given the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act about the place of recovery; petitioner's mobile number is 8114411405 which is registered in the name of his brother Naresh Kumar Dangi; as per prosecution, there is a call detail report; the petitioner is implicated in this case on the basis of the call detail report with the mobile number 7073138643 which is used by Prakash @ PP and that number belongs to his wife. Learned counsel further stated that charges have been framed against co-accused Mahendra Bhavat for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act whereas, charges have been framed against the present petitioner under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act and some of the offence are punishable under sections of the IPC; it is not clear that the car has been driven by whom to the place of recovery. It is further stated that Investigating Officer Prabhu Lal (PW. 5) could not made clear that how the petitioner is linked to the present case with the other co-accused; charge-sheet has been filed; and trial will take time. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment recently passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Choudhary v. Union of India, in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5703/2021, decided on 13.12.2021 in which it has been held that "Reliance on printouts of Whatsapp messages downloaded form the mobile phone and devices seized from the office premises of A-4 cannot be treated at this stage as sufficient material to establish a live link between him and A-1 to A-3." and on the basis of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, Gujarat High Court has also passed an order in the case of Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat in Crl. Misc. Application No. 1234/2022, decided on 02.03.2022. Learned counsel lastly urges that petitioner is suffering from a spinal cord problem and earlier benefit of interim bail on the ground of his medical condition has also been granted to the petitioner; petitioner is behind the bars since 12.05.2020; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
4. Per co
The potential alteration of charges at any stage by the trial court and the need for expedited trial due to the petitioner's medical condition were central legal points established in the judgment.
Bail under NDPS Act requires stringent conditions; the court must find reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the cas....
The court established that in cases involving narcotics, the quantity of contraband and the duration of custody are significant factors in determining bail eligibility.
Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent N....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the satisfaction of the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the absence of the petitioner from the vehicle during the recovery of the....
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
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.