HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Bhagirath, S/o. Channram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No. 10845 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-10-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 15, 25, 29, and 37 - Bail application filed by accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Accused arrested for possession of 2 quintals 50 kg 200 gm of poppy husk - Court emphasized the importance of compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure - Fundamental right to speedy trial prioritized over statutory restrictions on bail - Court allowed bail considering prolonged incarceration and non-compliance with legal provisions. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 14)
(B) The court noted that the accused's detention for an unreasonable period infringes upon personal liberty, and emphasized that the prosecution must justify continued detention. (Paras 11, 14)
ORDER :
(Farjand Ali, J.)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 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 | 313/2022 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Anoopgarh |
| 3. | District | Ganganagar |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 30.07.2024 |
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 18.05.2022 Shri Jagdish Prasad, Sub Inspector/Acting SHO, Police Station Anoopgarh, while on patrolling along with his team near Patroda, received information through an informer that Satpal alias Manu S/o Atmaram Bishnoi had brought a consignment of poppy husk to his village in Rohi 4 KC. Acting upon the said information, when Satpal alias Manu reached towards the village at around 05:22 PM, upon seeing the police team, he fled towards the fields and was identified by Sub Inspector Anoop Singh and Constable Ghanshyam who ran after him but he managed escape good due to considerable distance between them.
3. After the unsuccessful pursuit of the fleeing suspect two persons were spotted holding plastic sacks in their hands near a pile of stubble in Nohra. The police officers instructed them to stand still as they were and questioned about their identity. They disclosed themselves as Govind Bahadur S/o Sundar and Bhagirath S/o Chananram. They confirmed that the person who fled was Satpal alias Manu Bishnoi, the owner of the Dhani. When they were questioned regarding the packets in their possession, they failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation. After taking action as per rules, the packets in their possession were taken into police custody and additional packets were recovered from buried place under stubble in the raw shed. In total, 12 fully stitched packets and one partially filled packet were recovered. Upon opening and inspection, all packets were found containing poppy husk. The total weight of the seized contraband comes to 02 quintal 50 kg 200 gm.
4. It is evident that in the case at hand, the main accused Satpal is an accused of keeping a total of 02 quintals 50 kg 200 grams of poppy husk at his residential hamlet without a valid license and the said illegal narcotic substance has been seized by the police team in the presence of co-accused Govind Prasad and the present petitioner Bhagirath. The petitioner Bhagirath has been arrested in this case under sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. After search and seizure, samples were collected and sent to the FSL for its chemical examination.
5. 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. If the seizure of the contraband is not made as per the legal provision then the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. 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.
6. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
8. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is neither the owner of the place from where the recovery was made, nor have any dominion over the recovered contraband rather, it seems that he was merely performing the role of a labourer. The petitioner is aged about 66 years and he was arrested on 19.05.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Two and half yea
The court prioritized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration and procedural non-compliance.
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 non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can render evidence inadmissible, and that prolonged detention without trial can justify the grant of bail despite ....
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with NDPS Act provisions for admissibility of evidence, granting bail due to procedural lapses and prolonged incarceration.
The court established that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act.
The court established that personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when evidence is insufficient.
The court established that procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can justify bail, prioritizing individual liberty over 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 ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can lead to bail being granted despite statutory restrictions.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant 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.