Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Sanjay Kumar S/o Parmanand Kumahar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application No. 10214 of 2023
Decided On : 05-10-2023
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 8, Section 15, Section 37 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8 and Section 15 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the contraband and the procedural compliance by the police authorities. The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the offence, the quantity of contraband, and the stage of the case before the Trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act for the recovery of a contraband weighing 70 kgs 100 grams. Previous bail applications were dismissed, and the petitioner sought bail citing prolonged judicial custody and alleged procedural lapses by the police authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence and circumstances were sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner at this stage. It observed that the contraband was recovered following due procedure and was of a commercial quantity, posing a threat to public safety.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for bail considering the nature of the offence, the quantity of contraband, and alleged procedural lapses by the police authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the offence, the quantity of contraband, and the stage of the case against the petitioner before the Trial Court. It emphasized the importance of examining each case on its own merits, especially in bail cases.
Final Decision: The fourth bail application was dismissed, with the court noting that the observations made in the order do not affect the pending trial of the case before the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. This criminal misc. fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:
2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 143/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’).
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 26.06.2020, while there was a blockage on the border of Ahirpura, by one Phulchand Tailor, Station House Officer (SHO), a vehicle (car) bearing Registration No. DL-8C-AAM-8762 was coming from Nimach; when the said vehicle was stopped, three persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar, Suman and Sonu, were found sitting therein; thereafter, the vehicle was searched, during course whereof, a contraband Doda Post (poppy straw) weighing 70 kgs 100 gram was recovered; whereafter the aforementioned FIR was registered and the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused were arrested.
4. The first bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6193/2021, was dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2021, with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of the statements of the investigation officer and seizure officer.
4.1 The second bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 11842/2021 was also dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 07.09.2021.
4.2 The third bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 10182/2022 was also dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody for last more than 3 years and the trial of the case is likely to take a long time, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Smt. Suman and Balu Singh have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 15.02.2022 & 05.02.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1797/2022 & S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 404/2021, respectively. It was also submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish the required bail bonds and surety bonds, in case he is granted bail.
5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the samples of the contraband were not sent for FSL within a duration of 72 hours for the necessary examination. Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned police authorities did not follow the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and therefore, violated the provisions of law.
5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that in the cross-examination, Phulchand Talior, the concerned SHO clearly stated that as regards article No. 11, there was no general seal graven and the seal-chit of the article was also not done properly by the concerned police authorities; thus, a procedural lapse was committed during the search and seizure in question by the concerned police authorities, which is against the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
5.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in:
(b) Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13504/2022, decided on 23.05.2023
(c) Dinesh @ Rinku vs. State, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3342/2020, decided on 07.09.2020
(d) Shera Ram vs. S
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of examining each case on its own merits, especially in bail cases, and considering the nature of the offence, the quantity of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the procedural compliance under the NDPS Act, the lack of evidence for bail, and the applicability of Section 37 for com....
The court granted bail based on the absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process, emphasizing that Section 37 restrictions do not apply in this case.
The evidentiary value of interrogation notes and the commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act were central to the court's decision.
The commercial quantity of recovered contraband and the petitioner's alleged involvement in other NDPS Act cases influenced the court's decision to reject the bail application.
The stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious narcotic offences.
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient grounds for continued detention based on the nature of the charges and comparison with a co-accused already granted bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail under the NDPS Act can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and not likely....
The court granted bail to the petitioner under stringent conditions, emphasizing compliance with NDPS provisions, the significance of the quantity of contraband, and the petitioner's lack of prior cr....
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
