HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Mohammed Rizwan Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB / 1061 / 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/22 and 8/29 - Bail applications filed by petitioners arrested for possession of Psychotropic Substances - Petitioners argued that recovered quantity was below commercial limits - Prosecution claimed otherwise - Court found that the substances were indeed below commercial quantity and allowed bail. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Bail - Consideration for grant - The court noted that the investigation was complete and the alleged quantities were below commercial limits, warranting the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the allegations. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.02/2025 for possession of MDMA. The prosecution claimed that a total of 11.25 gms was found, but the petitioners argued that the amounts were below commercial thresholds. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the total quantity recovered from the petitioners was below the commercial quantity, allowing for the grant of bail. (Para 8)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the quantity of the Psychotropic Substance recovered was above or below the commercial quantity necessary to deny bail. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the recovered quantity was below commercial limits and the investigation was complete, the petitioners were entitled to bail. (Para 8)
Result: Bail applications allowed.
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. These applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.02/2025, registered at Police Station Badgaon, District Udaipur, for offence under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR and challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the prosecution, on 03.01.2025, after receiving a specific information, petitioners namely Mohammed Saheed @ Shaheed and Zaheer Mohammad were apprehended by the investigating agency and upon being search, Psychotropic Substances (MDMA) weighing 11.25 gms was recovered from their joint possession. As per prosecution, on being asked, the petitioners failed to produce any valid license to posses/carry the illegal contraband. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the challan papers would indicate that in the present case, Psychotropic Substance (MDMA) weighing 6.63 gms and 4.62 gms was recovered separately from the conscious possession of the above named petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Psychotropic Substance separately recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners is below commercial quantity.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners namely Mohammed Rizwan Khan and Jauharan Noor Khan submitted that in the present case, the allegation against the above named accused- petitioners is of supplying the recovered Psychotropic Substance to the other co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submitted that Psychotropic Substance allegedly supplied by the above named accused-petitioners to the other co-accused persons namely Mohammed Shaeed @ Shaheed, Zaheer Mohammad and Shahrukh @ Sahil is below commercial quantity.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since; the challan against them 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-petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and submitted that in the present case, the contraband recovered from the joint possession of the present petitioners namely Mohammed Shaeed @ Shaheed and Zaheer Mohammad is greater than commercial quantity and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegation levelled against them, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that as per challan papers, at that time when personal search of petitioners namely Mohammed Shaeed @ Shaheed and Zaheer Mohammed was conducted by the investigating agency, Psychotropic Substance weighing 6.63 gms and 4.62 gms respectively was recovered separately from their trouser.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that in the present case, Psychotropic Substance recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioners was below commercial quantity and the investigation against the present petitioners has already been completed. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
9. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely (i) Mohammed Shaeed @ Shaheed @ Chini S/o Shri Mphammad Rafiq Mansuri, (ii) Mohammed Rizwan Khan S/ o Late Riyaz Mohammed Khan, (iii) Jauharan Noor Khan S/ o Mohammed Noor Khan, (iv) Zaheer Mohammad S/o Shri Ali Mohammad and (v) Shahrukh @ Sahil S/o Mohammad Yunus arrested in connec
The court established that possession of Psychotropic Substances below commercial quantity warrants bail, especially when the investigation is complete.
The absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the supply of psychotropic substances, alongside the bail granted to co-accused, justified the approval of bail.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
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 under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the substance recovered was below commercial quantity and considering the precedent of co-accused being granted bail.
The acquittal of co-accused and absence of contraband from the petitioner justify the granting of bail, indicating low likelihood of conviction.
The court held that possession of a substance below the commercial quantity threshold justifies granting bail, especially when no prior cases exist against the applicant.
The absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process justified 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.