IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Suresh Kumar S/o Asu Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application No. 12660/2024
Decided On : 08-10-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 37, 52-A, 439 CrPC - The court emphasized the importance of fundamental rights over statutory provisions in granting bail, particularly in light of procedural non-compliance and prolonged incarceration.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner sought bail under Section 439 CrPC after being incarcerated since May 2021 for alleged offences under the NDPS Act, with claims of no substantial evidence against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that procedural lapses in the seizure and sampling of contraband, along with the lengthy detention of the accused, warranted the granting of bail despite the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC despite the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that fundamental rights to liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions when there are significant procedural defects in the prosecution's case.
Result: The bail application is allowed, and the accused-petitioner is granted bail.
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 91/2021
2. Concerned Police Station Naal
3. District Bikaner
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/22 and 25 of the NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned order -
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. Three bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 21.12.2022, 17.07.2023 & 05.07.2024 in CRLMB Nos. 16686/2021, 2487/2023 & 3830/2024 respectively. The petitioner is behind the bars since 29.05.2021. Co-accused of this case Gopi Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 in CRLMB No.7645/2023. The relevant portion of the said bail is reproduced hereinbelow:-
7. Perusal of the statement of P.W. 2 Vikram Singh revealing that the samples sent to the FSL for detection of contraband were neither taken nor marked in the presence of Magistrate. Not making inventory in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government vide Standings Order Nos.1/1988 & 1/1989 as well as the mandate of law contained under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is a serious question which if decided in favour of the accused, then his conviction cannot be made. When there appears reasonable ground to presume that certain infirmity or legal defect would be fatal to the prosecution still not exercising power of granting bail would mean not honoring the guarantee of the Constitution given to every individual regarding protection of his liberty.
8. In this view of the matter it can be said that the samples sent to the FSL and the report of the FSL in this rega
The court established that procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can justify bail, prioritizing individual liberty over statutory restrictions.
The court established that fundamental rights can take precedence over statutory restrictions on bail in cases of procedural non-compliance.
The court established that procedural compliance is crucial in drug-related cases, and significant lapses can warrant bail despite statutory restrictions.
The court established that the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, particularly when ....
The court established that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial, and failure to adhere to such provisions can lead to the grant of bail even in serious cases.
The court ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can lead to bail being granted despite statutory restrictions.
Procedural compliance in the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, impacting the court's discretion in granting bail.
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the sampling process, can render the prosecution's case weak and justify the grant of bail,....
Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act can undermine the prosecution's case and justify the grant of bail.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration without trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.