IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Rajesh Jain @ Munna Jain, S/o. Subhash Jain - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4680 of 2024
Decided On : 03-09-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 8, 21, 29, 37 - The court emphasized the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly the necessity of demonstrating reasonable grounds for bail eligibility, highlighting the societal dangers posed by drug trafficking and the need for judicial caution in granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for offenses under the NDPS Act, with no recovery from his possession. He sought bail, arguing that the contraband was below commercial quantity and that the main accused had been granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had multiple NDPS cases against him and that the nature of drug trafficking posed significant societal risks, warranting a cautious approach to bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act given the nature of the charges and his criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail under the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.
Result: The bail application was rejected, with directions for the trial to conclude within six months.
ORDER :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 120/2022 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 8/21, 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has been implicated only with the aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. It is argued that the recovered contraband is less than commercial quantity and the main accused in this case i.e. Vikas @ Laddu and Sagar @ Sonu has already been released on bail by this Court. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable and therefore, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that as many as sixteen criminal cases are registered against the petitioner out of which fifteen cases are offences under NDPS Act and as per call details on record, the main accused was in touch with the present petitioner, therefore, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record.
5. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power to grant or refuse bail is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised judiciously. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case.
6. The main purpose of the NDPS Act is to curb and strictly deal with illicit trafficking in powerful, dangerous and injurious street drugs. Hence, the provisions of NDPS are not to be construed liberally, rather, they are to ensure effective implementation of rule of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durand Didier vs. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa [1990 (1) SCC 95] while dealing with the menace that drug trafficking is, has observed as under :
7. There are twin requisite conditions which are sine qua non for enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act. The first condition is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence while granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act as under; and the second is that accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.
8. Similarly, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh And Anr. reported in 1999 (9) SCC 429 has observed as under :
Durand Didier vs. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa
Bail under the NDPS Act necessitates proof of innocence and no risk of reoffending, reflecting the serious societal impact of drug-related crimes.
Point of Law - Dismiss the bail application - Recoveries together fall within category of commercial quantity - Section 37 of Act no accused can be released on bail when application is opposed by Pub....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail should be granted only when the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to belief or po....
Section 37 of NDPS Act specifically stipulates certain conditions to be satisfied for purpose of granting bail.
The stringent conditions for granting bail to drug traffickers under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the need to prevent their nefarious activities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and....
The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration without trial.
The violation of procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act can lead to the granting of bail, even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
The court emphasized that personal liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions in granting bail, especially when there are violations of mandatory provisions.
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.