Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Yogendra Kumar Purohit, J.
Shrawan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15816 of 2022
Decided On : 30-01-2023
BAIL - NDPS ACT - The court granted bail to the accused-petitioner, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence connecting him to the alleged crime, particularly noting that the only evidence was based on information from a co-accused. The court interpreted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, determining that the bar on bail was not applicable due to insufficient prima-facie evidence against the petitioner, who had been in custody for an extended period with a protracted trial anticipated.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 35/2021 for offenses under the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated, with no direct evidence linking him to the crime, and had been in custody since October 20, 2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the only evidence against the petitioner was information from a co-accused, with no recovery or call details linking him to the crime. It concluded that prima-facie no case was made out against the petitioner, and thus the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the charges under the NDPS Act, considering the evidence presented and the duration of custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of substantial evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime, along with the lengthy duration of custody without trial, justified the granting of bail.
Result: The court allowed the bail application, ordering the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
ORDER
1. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 35/2021 registered at Police Station RGT, Rawli Nadi, District Barmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of information furnished by co-accused Chhaganlal. Except the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime. No call details are on record. No recovery has been effected from the accused-petitioner. The petitioner in judicial custody since 20.10.2022 and trial is likely to take long time to conclude. According to learned counsel, on the basis of prima-facie evidence on record, there is no involvement of the accused-petitioner and therefore, looking to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the matter involves recovery of commercial quantity of illicit contraband from co-accused and therefore, prays for dismissal of the bail application.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that petitioner has been made accused on the basis of information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence denoting involvement of the petitioner, prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioner and thus, bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS is not attracted, the accused is in jail since 20.10.2022 and trial of the case may take long time to conclude, without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shrawan Kumar S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned lower court for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
Extended judicial custody without trial and lack of evidence of possession justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted due to lack of substantive evidence against the accused-petitioner, emphasizing that disclosure statements from co-accused are inadmissible.
Prolonged incarceration without trial and lack of admissible evidence can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Bail may be granted when the accused is implicated based on co-accused statements without substantial evidence, especially if similar co-accused have been granted bail.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
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
