IMPORTANT POINT
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in drug-related cases.

ORDER :

(Kuldeep Mathur, J.)

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.117/2024 registered at Police Station Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. At the outset, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press the bail application qua petitioner No.1 Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayka. He thus craves leave of the Court to file a fresh bail application qua the petitioner No.1 Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayka after the statements of the Investigating Officer are recorded before the competent criminal Court.

4. So far as petitioner No.2 Gagan S/o Bagduram Rayka is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, a police team of S.H.O., Nimbahera on 07.03.2024, during routine nakabandi of the area falling under the jurisdiction flagged down one Innova Car bearing registration No.RJ-14-UE-3019. However, the driver of the offending vehicle being co-accused Bhairulal managed to flee from the scene. Upon an interrogations of the co-accused Govind Kumar and upon a search of the offending vehicle, the contraband (Poppy Husk/Straw) weighing 219 kgs. and 200 gms. was recovered. The co-passenger of the offending vehicle i.e. co-accused Govind Kumar on being asked, could not show any valid license to possess or transport the recovered contraband. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused persons namely Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayka and Simrat was escorting the offending vehicle and they were not arrested from the spot.

6. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons, there is no other direct/circumstantial evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner- Gagan in commission of the alleged crime. It was contended that the petitioner- Gagan is a close relative of the co-accused persons namely Govind Kumar and Surendra.

7. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the call details between the petitioner and the co-accused persons namely Govind Kumar and Surendra are available on record which are indicative of the fact that the petitioner was escorting the offending vehicle. However, since the petitioner is close relative of the co-accused persons namely Govind Kumar and Surendra, it is not unnatural that certain call details of his connection with co-accused- Surendra exist but there is nothing on record to indicate that at the time of the recovery, the petitioner was in a live contact with the co-accused persons namely Govind Kumar and Bhairulal who were allegedly transporting the contraband in the offending vehicle.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.2- Gagan is in judicial custody; the petitioner does not have any case of similar nature lodged against him; the investigation against him has already been concluded; the challan has already been filed before the competent criminal Court; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner No.2.

9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present case, the evidence in the form of call details has been obtained by the Investigating Agency which is prima facie indicative of the fact that the petitioner is involved in commission of the alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be e