Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Mohammed Rizwan Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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
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.
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.
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
