SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Rawta Ram S/o Pappa Ram – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through NCB, Jodhpur – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14290 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Anand Purohit, Devendra Singh Rathore, Mayank Roy.
For the Respondent: M.R. Pareek.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court considered the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant bail.

Headnote:

Bail Application - NDPS Act - 8/18, 25 & 29 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the conditions for granting bail under the Act. It also referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statutory restrictions and the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail based on the violation of constitutional rights. The court considered the prolonged incarceration of the accused and allowed the bail application.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being arrested for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial had been pending for over four years, with only five out of twelve witnesses examined.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the second bail application considering the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the ongoing trial.

Issues: Prolonged custody, trial delay, and statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail based on the violation of constitutional rights.

Final Decision: The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail.

ORDER :

1. This is the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 02/2020, Police Station NCB Jodhpur, District Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2022 as not pressed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the trial is pending for last more than four years and till date, only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 12 witnesses. Counsel submits that some witnesses did not turn up for their evidence despite issuance of summon.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the recent order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4169/2023, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under:

    “3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent-State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act.”

5. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, observed as under:

    “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”

6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as follows:

    “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3961/2022, Amit Singh Moni vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 668/2020, Tapan Das vs. Union of India, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5617/2021, Kulwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5187/2019, Ghanshyam Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5397/2019, Nadeem vs. State of U.P. Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1524/2022 and Mukesh vs. State of Rajasthan, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4089/2021 has granted bail to the accused pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top