Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Raju Alias Pintu – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13043 of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022
Bail - NDPS Act - The court granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the lack of credible evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the expected lengthy trial duration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with F.I.R. No.223/2021, Police Station Chittor Sadar, District Chittorgarh, for the offences under Section 8/15 NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of credible evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the expected lengthy trial duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of recovery of contraband from the petitioner, lack of credible evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery, and the anticipated lengthy trial duration.
Final Decision: The second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing sureties.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.223/2021, Police Station Chittor Sadar, District Chittorgarh, for the offences under Section 8/15 NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.
3. After the rejection of the first bail application on 12.01.2022, the charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any recovery of the contraband has been effected from the present petitioner nor he is having any connection with the recovery of the contraband. Learned counsel further submits that even the call details produced before this Court are not supported by a certificate of 65-B and, therefore, same cannot be taken into consideration while evaluating the evidence against the present petitioner. He submits that except the statement of co-accused Kapil, there is no other credible evidence on record which shows the connectivity of the present petitioner with the recovery of contraband. He submits that there is no case of the like nature pending or decided against the petitioner. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
5. Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Raju alias Pintu S/o Kesu Ram Banjara shall be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.223/2021, Police Station Chittor Sadar, District Chittorgarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees: One Lac Only) with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) each (out of which, one surety will be of local resident) 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.
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'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 court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the nature of the recovered contraband and the expected duration of the trial.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
