Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Sabir Khan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 521 of 2022
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Bail Application - NDPS Act - The court allowed the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner who was arrested in connection with an NDPS Act case, based on lack of direct involvement and evidence against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with an NDPS Act case. The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.208/2019, Police Station Mandalgarh, Bhilwara for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, found that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the petitioner's alleged false implication, lack of direct involvement, absence of evidence showing the petitioner's involvement, and the non-invocation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of direct involvement of the petitioner in the case, absence of evidence showing the petitioner's involvement, and the non-invocation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Mathur, J. - This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.208/2019, Police Station Mandalgarh, Bhilwara for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.
3. It is argued by learned counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel has further submitted that the contraband poppy-straw, weighing 201 kg., was seized from pick-up having no. RJ-21-G1-6249. The driver of the vehicle, during interrogation, disclosed the name of Babu @ Yakub Khan to whom contraband (poppy-straw) was to be delivered. Further, Babu @ Yakub Khan disclosed the name of petitioner stating that he is the owner of pick-up No.RJ-21-G1-6249. It is in this back-ground, learned counsel submitted that there is no direct involvement of the petitioner in the present case and he had no knowledge of contraband being transported in the Vehicle No.RJ-21-G1-6249. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence showing involvement of the petitioner in the present case except statement of Babu @ Yakub Khan.
4. Learned counsel submitted that prima-facie rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Lastly, it was submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of the petitioner showing involvement of the petitioner in any other offence under the NDPS Act.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and 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.
7. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner Sabir Khan S/o Shri Hussain Khan Kayamkhani Musalman arrested in connection with FIR No.208/2019, P.S. Mandalgarh, Bhilwara shall be released on bail; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial duration, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to question the prosecution's case.
The court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act rendered the evidence inadmissible, justifying bail for the petitioner.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
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....
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in deciding bail applications and the assessment of evidence against the accused.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
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
