Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Swarn Singh @ Sonu – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.22/2022, registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that co- accused Nishan Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8971/2023) from whose conscious possession contraband (Poppy husk/straw) weighing 69 kg. was recovered has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused Nishan Singh. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody; the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents; the investigation against the present petitioners has already been completed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioners.
3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecut
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial duration, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to question the prosecution's case.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the release of a co-accused and absence of apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice.
Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent N....
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient grounds for continued detention based on the nature of the charges and comparison with a co-accused already granted bail.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
Compliance with mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act is essential; failure to adhere can render the seizure unlawful.
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.
Bail may be granted if the accused shows no knowledge of the contraband and has been in custody for a significant time, despite the seriousness of the charges.
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
