Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
SHIVENDRA SINGH @ SANJAY @ SANJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1.This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.20/2020, registered at Police Station Raisingh Nagar, District Ganga Nagar, for offences under Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, psychotropic substance Tramadol Tablets (2500 tablets) and Onrex Cough Syrup (115 plastic bottles of 100 ml each), greater than commercial quantity were recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused- Pawan Kumar. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of information furnished under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by the co-accused- Pawan Kumar where in he had stated that the recovered psychotropic substance were procured by him from the present petitioner and the co-accused- Vikrant Gupta.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused person-Pawan Kumar (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.12503/2023) from whose conscious posse
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 principle of parity in bail applications allows for granting bail when a co-accused has already been released, especially in the absence of criminal antecedents and when no recovery was made from....
The court established that possession of Psychotropic Substances below commercial quantity warrants bail, especially when the investigation is complete.
The acquittal of co-accused and absence of contraband from the petitioner justify the granting of bail, indicating low likelihood of conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of conditions under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, lack of material indicating the applicant's involvement, and the prolonged period....
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 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 court granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
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
