Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Gajesingh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. Both the instant bail applications stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the same FIR.
2. The present second bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.231/2019, Police Station Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/29 of NDPS Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.
4. The first bail applications of the petitioners were rejected vide order dated 21.07.2020 with liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of Investigating/Seizure Officer is recorded before the trial court.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that three bail applications were decided by a common order dated 21.07.2020 vide which the bail applications of the present petitioners were rejected whereas the bail application preferred by the co-accused Rajal, who was actually the person from whom the contraband was recovered, was enlarged on bail. He submits that the present petitioners were neither present on the spot nor any recovery has been effected from them.
6.
Bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the totality of circumstances, including lack of evidence and the potential length of trial, justifies such a decision.
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 quantity of the recovered contraband and the absence of similar criminal cases can be considered in granting bail under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
Bail may be granted when there is no direct evidence against the accused, especially if co-accused have been released and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of witness examination can justify bail under the NDPS Act, overriding statutory restrictions.
Prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress can justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., provided it does not prejudice the trial.
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.
Extended judicial custody without trial and lack of evidence of possession justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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
