IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the seriousness of the case, the recovery of a huge quantity of contraband, and the petitioner's conduct in previous cases as key factors in denying bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.VIII[10]/03/NCB/JZU/2020 of NCB, Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 8/18 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no recovery of contraband from the possession of the present petitioner. He further submits that the co-accused persons from whom the recovery of contraband has been made have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. He prays that since the petitioner is 75% handicapped, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is involved in similar nature of cases being Case No.119/2022 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, Case No.1/2021 registered at ASZ, NCB, Ajmer & Case No.9/2018 registered at NCB, Jodhpur and therefore, he is a habitual offender and involved himself in drug trafficking in the State of Rajasthan. He further submits that the antecedent report of the petitioner clearly suggests that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him getting involved in drug trafficking/offences of the same nature again. He also submits that huge quantity of contraband (33 Kgs. of Opium) has been recovered in the present case.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that on earlier occasions, although the petitioner was enlarged on bail, however, on cancellation of the bail application filed before this Court, the same was allowed and the bail granted by this Court was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to surrender within a period of thirty days. However, the petitioner did not surrender before the jail authorities in time and ultimately, after a period of two years when the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of cancellation passed by the High Court, the respondent authorities took the custody of the petitioner, therefore, in such a situation, if the benefit of enlargement on bail is granted to the petitioner, he is likely to misuse the same.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submits that the case of the present petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of the co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail as the release of the co-accused persons was on the basis of custody period which they have undergone and admittedly, the petitioner has not undergone the custody period equivalent to the co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail. He, therefore, prays that the bail application may be rejected.

7. I have considered the submission made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

8. Admittedly, in the present case, a huge quantity of Opium i.e. 33 Kgs. has been recovered. The allegation against the petitioner is of supplying the opium. The petitioner is found involved at least in three more cases of dealing in narcotic substances in the State of Rajasthan and three different FIRs have been registered against him and the trial of the same are pending consideration before the trial Courts. This Court feels that the liberty granted by the Courts by enlargement of the petitioner on bail has been grossly misused by him by involvement in the offences of the like nature repeatedly. The enlargement of the person on bail is always on the ground that he will not involve himself or commit the offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspect of the commission of which he is suspected. The involvement of the petitioner in the offences of like nature on 3 occasions clearly shows that he is misusing the indulgence granted by the Courts by enlargement of the petitioner on bail. The conduct of the petitioner shows that the society at large is suffering on account of the involvement of the petitioner in such crimes.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme