Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Ratan Lal @ Kanhaiya Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 12274 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Bail - NDPS Act - The court granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to lack of evidence connecting him with the recovery of contraband and the absence of certain crucial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a 2nd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of the first bail application. The petitioner was in custody in connection with an offence punishable under Section 8/29 of 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 main issue was the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of the contraband and the absence of crucial evidence such as the recovery of the mobile and the certificate of 65B of the Evidence Act for call details.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of evidence connecting the petitioner with the recovery of contraband and the absence of crucial evidence, as well as the fact that no case of like nature was pending or decided against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The 2nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present 2nd 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.54/2021, Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 20/01/2022 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 first bail application of the petitioner, the statements of seizure officer Om Pal and Investigating Officer Rajendra Tada have been recorded before learned trial Court as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively. Learned counsel submits that except the statement of co-accused Anup, there is no evidence against the petitioner in the present case to connect him with the recovery of the contraband in this case. He further submits that although the call details of the petitioner is available on record but neither the mobile has been recovered from the petitioner nor a certificate of 65B of the Evidence Act of the call details has been procured and placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused Ram Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09/11/2022. No case of like nature is pending or decided against the present petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes 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.
6. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Ratan Lal @ Kanhaiya Lal S/o Kalu Ram, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 54/2021, Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara provided he furnishes 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 to the satisfaction of 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 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.
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's decision to grant bail was influenced by the nature of the recovered contraband and the expected duration of the trial.
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, ....
Granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits 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
