Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER
1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.304/2020, Police Station Bap, District Jodhpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. According to the prosecution, contraband of 34 boxes containing 20,400 Tramadol Hydrochloride 100mg tablets were recovered from co-accused Joginder Singh by the SHO, P.S. Baap on 10.12.2020 during nakabandi, being transported in Bus No. RJ-19 PB-6767. Joginder Singh in his information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that he got the contraband from Vikas and Gordhan. Thereupon, Vikas s/o Shankar Lal, in his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that the petitioner through his mobile no. 7665076311 called him at his mobile no. 9579013982 stating that his old buyer, Joginder Singh (mobile no. 7347299660) will be coming to Phalodi to purchase the contraband. Vikas s/o Shankar Lal and Madan alias Kaju s/o Omprakash, on being asked by the present petitioner made WhatsApp calls for arranging the contraband from Mangi Lal s/o Kanwar Lal and sold/handed the same over to coaccused
The court reinforced that under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the accused to demonstrate a lack of guilt for bail eligibility, particularly in serious drug offenses.
The court emphasized that serious charges under the NDPS Act require careful consideration, and merits should not be prejudged at the bail stage.
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the need for pending witness statements before reconsidering bail.
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there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.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 emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
The court established that fundamental rights can take precedence over statutory restrictions on bail in cases of procedural non-compliance.
The stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the evidence connecting the petitioner to his co-accused influenced the court's decision in dismissing the petition for regular bail.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict limitation on bail for offences involving commercial quantity as specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The court established that a lack of direct evidence connecting an accused to a crime is a critical factor in bail considerations under the 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
