IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
Bhomaram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15177 of 2023, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1559 of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Accused petitioners arrested under NDPS Act - No direct evidence against petitioners apart from statements of main accused - Custody duration considered - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-6)
(B) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Applicability of rider for bail applications - Arguments presented by prosecution considered but insufficient to deny bail. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The bail applications were filed for accused petitioners arrested under FIR No.178/2023 for offences under NDPS Act, claiming false implication with no substantive evidence against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found no direct evidence against the petitioners and noted their prolonged custody, deeming it just to grant bail.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of evidence against the accused petitioners and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of direct evidence and the lengthy custody warranted the granting of bail despite the prosecution's opposition.
Result: Bail applications allowed.
ORDER :
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.178/2023 registered at Police Station Mandhana, District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. The accused petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and have been implicated in the case based upon the statements of the main accused Premaram & Rakesh from whom possession 14 kg 700 gms poppy straw was recovered. Apart from the discloser statement, there is no substantive peace of evidence available on record against the accused-petitioners. Accused-petitioners are in custody since long. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. No useful would be served by keeping the accused-petitioners behind the bars till disposal of the case.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail applications and contend that rider of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in the instant matters, therefore, the bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be rejected.
4. Heard. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that apart from the statements of the main accused Premaram & Rakesh, there is no direct evidence available on record connecting the present petitioners in the alleged crime and accused-petitioners are in custody since long, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Bhomaram S/o Pusaram and Pappu Lal S/o Shri. Chhotulal, shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
AI
The absence of direct evidence against accused petitioners and their prolonged custody justified the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail to an accused under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the accused is charged under th....
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is crucial for the protection of the accused's rights during searches, and violations can lead to the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that personal liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions in granting bail, especially when there are violations of mandatory provisions.
The court established that in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not bar the granting of bail.
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.