Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Jeetram S/o Bhanwar Lal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10750 of 2024
Decided On : 11-09-2024
Bail - Narcotic Drugs - NDPS Act Sections 25, 35, 37, 54 - The court interpreted provisions regarding possession and culpability, emphasizing that ownership implies knowledge of contraband use, thus denying bail based on the severity of the offense and the applicant's control over the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a registered owner of a vehicle, was implicated in a drug case after contraband was found in his car during a police patrol. He claimed innocence, stating he was not present during the incident and had lent the car to a relative.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had personal knowledge of the contraband's presence in his vehicle, establishing constructive possession. The severity of the offense and the applicant's control over the vehicle were critical in denying bail.
Issues: Whether the accused had knowledge of the contraband in his vehicle and if he should be granted bail under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Ownership of a vehicle implies knowledge of its use for illegal activities, and the presumption of possession under the NDPS Act necessitates a high standard of proof for bail.
Result: The bail application is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 0293/2023 dated 21.12.2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1985’).
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 31.12.2023 Mr. Jaimal Singh, Sub Inspector- SHO, Peeplu along-with police personnel were on patrolling in the night. When they reached in front of Nathdi near Maasi Nahar, one Swift Dzire Car came towards Jhirana. After seeing the patrolling party, they took the car from the main road to the Kachha way going towards Naya Village. The police team after chasing stopped the car and when asked the name then the person driving the car stated his name as Bhajanlal Kumhar S/o Hanuman Kumhar and the person who was sitting adjacent stated his name as Khushiram Jat S/o Rajaram Jat and the person who was sitting in the middle stated his name as Udairam Gurjar s/o Gordhan. During the course of search of Car bearing number RJ-26-CA-4005, on the middle seat, two plastic bags (katte) and two other plastic bags (katta) were found in filled condition in luggage dickey. All the above-named three persons failed to give any satisfactory reply. After opening the bags (katte), when same were checked then it was detected ‘Doda Chura’. When licence in regard to same was asked then they showed inability. The net weight of ‘Doda Chura’ was 75 kg. and 309 gm.
3. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner is an innocent person and he has been implicated in the present case merely because he is the registered owner of the Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration number RJ-26-CA-4005, from which the alleged contraband was recovered at the time when co-accused persons namely; Bhajan Lal Kumhar and Khushi Ram Jat were present inside, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
Counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner is a student and he is preparing for the competitive examinations and he was not present in the car in question at the time of recovery of the contraband article. Counsel also submitted that on demand of the said Car, the accused petitioner has given his car to his relative and the petitioner was not having any knowledge about transporting of the alleged contraband in the aforesaid Car. Counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2024 and charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and the trial of the case will take considerable and prayed that he may be released on bail.
4. Counsel further submitted that co-accused persons namely; Rajulal, Bannalal and Jeevraj Karasadha have been granted indulgence of bail by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 and the case of the present accused petitioner is on similar footings. Hence, the present present accused petitioner may also be extended similar benefit of bail by this Court.
Counsel for the accused petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the following orders decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:
1. Ravindra and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11177/2023, dated 18.09.2023
2. Babulal Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6739/2024 dated 02.08.2024
3. Mahesh Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9855/2023, dated 04.08.2023
4. Imran Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9006/2024, dated 22.08.2024
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the provision of Section 25 of the NDPS Act speaks that the registered owner of the vehicle actively involved in the offence, shall also be an accused. It is not in dispute that the accused petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle
Ownership of a vehicle creates a presumption of knowledge regarding its use for illegal activities under the NDPS Act, impacting bail eligibility.
Possession of narcotics creates a presumption of guilt under the NDPS Act, and the accused must prove lack of conscious possession to be granted bail.
The duty of the Investigating Officer to establish the owner's knowledge or consent for the vehicle to be used in the commission of the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and the limitations o....
Point of law: Rejection of bail application - it is for the accused to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and....
The presumption of conscious possession applies in drug cases, necessitating the petitioner to disprove involvement in the crime to grant bail under the NDPS Act.
The court emphasized that in narcotics cases involving commercial quantities, a presumption of conscious possession applies to all occupants of a vehicle, requiring strict adherence to Section 37 of ....
The court upheld the presumption of conscious possession under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, and denied bail due to the commercial quantity of narcotics invo....
The court clarified that 'conscious possession' under the NDPS Act necessitates awareness and control over the contraband, which was not proven in this case.
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
