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.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21, 22, and 29 - Application for bail - Petitioner arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.20/2020 for possession of psychotropic substances - Co-accused already granted bail - No evidence of direct involvement of petitioner in supply of substances - Court allows bail application. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Bail - Consideration for bail includes whether co-accused have been granted bail and the absence of direct evidence against the petitioner - Judicial custody and length of trial are relevant factors. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of psychotropic substances, but the substances were recovered from a co-accused. The co-accused have been granted bail, and there was no evidence linking the petitioner directly to the supply of the substances.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the co-accused have been granted bail and that the prosecution could not provide evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the case. The court decided to grant bail to the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the circumstances of the case and the status of co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of recovered substances from the petitioner and the bail granted to co-accused were significant factors in deciding to allow bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

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. 2^nd Bail Application No.12503/2023) from whose conscious possession the psychotropic substance was recovered and co-accused- Vikrant Gupta (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7718/2022) who had allegedly supplied the recovered psychotropic substance to the co-accused- Pawan Kumar and the another co-accused Rakesh Kumar (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8215/2022) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.10.2023 and 27.03.2023 respectively.

5. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the statements of the co-accused persons, no evidence is available on record indicating that the recovered psychotropic substance was supplied by the petitioner to the co-accused- Pawan Kumar at the instance of co-accused- Rakesh Kumar. It was contended that the psychotropic substance was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner.

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the psychotropic substance was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view the fact that the co-accused persons including Pawan Kumar from whose conscious possession the psychotropic substance was recovered, have also been enlarged on bail, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

9. Consequently, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.(483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Shivendra Singh @ Sanjay @ Sanju S/o Nathu Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.20/2020, registered at Police Station Raisingh Nagar, District Ganga Nagar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document