HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Mubarik Ajmeri - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB / 8898 / 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner was arrested in connection with offences under NDPS Act for recovery of contraband weighing 22 quintals 21 kgs and 700 gms from a vehicle driven by a co-accused - The court noted that the petitioner was implicated solely based on disclosure statements of co-accused, with no direct evidence linking him to the crime - The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and the prosecution did not show apprehension of him fleeing from justice. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Bail - Consideration for bail - The court emphasized that the absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the long duration of the trial justified granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged involvement in a drug trafficking case where significant quantities of contraband were recovered from a vehicle. The case relied heavily on statements from co-accused individuals.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, and he does not have a criminal history.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the detention of the petitioner pending trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of direct evidence and the nature of the accusations warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Result: The second bail application is allowed.
Order :
1.This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.76/2024 registered at Police Station Nimbahera Sadar, Dist. Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 22 quintals 21 kgs and 700 gms. was recovered from a Tata truck bearing registration No.PB-02-AY-7275. The offending vehicle was being driven by co-accused Baljinder Singh. Co-accused- Baljinder Singh in his statements recorded on 10.03.2024 divulged an information that he had procured the recovered contraband on being asked by co-accused- Aditya Jain from another co-accused- Ismail S/o Noor Mohammad. Co-accused- Ismail in turn divulged an information that he alongwith the present petitioner on 08.03.2024 loaded the recovered contraband in the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the Investigating Officer- Ram Sumer (PW.2) have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court. The statements of the Investigating Officer (PW.2) clearly indicates that apart from the disclosure statements of co- accused persons, there is no direct/circumstantial evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
4. Learned counsel 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.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW.2) is reproduced below for ready reference:-
^^izn'kZ ih 33 esa nksuks xokg iqfyldehZ gksdj esjs v/khuLFk gS ml rLnhd eksds ij ,sls dksbZ nLrkosth ;k Lor=a lk{; ugh feyh tks eqckfjd }kjk bLekbZy ;k vU; vfHk;qDr dks MksMkpqjk Hkjkus ;k [kjhn Qjks[r djrs ns[kk gks o vU; vkjksih ls Hkh lac/k LFkkfir djus okys dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; ugh feysA izn'kZ ih 34] 35 nksuks xokg iqfyldehZ gksdj esjs v/khuLFk gSA mDr edku vtht vtesjh dk gks o vtht vtesjh LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; lac/kh nksjkus ryk'kh ,sls dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; ugh feys tks vtht vtesjh o eqckfjd dks vkil esa tksM+rh gks ,oa mDr izn'kZ ih 34 ij ,sls dksbZ vkykekr ugh feys tks eqckfjd dks rLnhd eksds ls tksM+rh gksA --------------------- ;g lgh gS fd eq[; vfHk;qDr dk o vkfnR; tsu dk eqckfjd ls dksbZ lac/k LFkkfir djus okys nkSjkus vuqla/kku eq>s dksbZ lk{; izkIr ugh gq, uk gh mUgkasus vius fdlh dFku ;k 27 dh lqpuk] rLnhd eksdk vkfn esa dksbZ c;ku ugh fn;sA ;g lgh gS fd mDr izdj.k esa nksjkus vuqla/kku eq[; vfHk;qDr o vU; vkjksfi;kas dk eqckfjd ls lac/k LFkkfir djus okys fdlh izdkj ds Lor=a o nLrkosth lk{; o eksckby dkWy fMVsy ;k chVh,l yksds'ku vkfn izkIr ugha gqbZ tks eqckfjd dk eq[; vfHk;qDr o vU; vfHk;qDr bLekbZy ls lac/k LFkkfir djrh gksA^^
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner; the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused persons; the Investigating Officer (PW.2) during his cross-examination before the competent criminal Court has admitted that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, there is no direct/circumstantial evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, with
The court granted bail due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
The court granted bail based on the determination that the quantity of contraband supplied was below commercial threshold and the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents.
Bail may be granted when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and there is no evidence of reoffending.
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 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.
Bail may be granted when the petitioner is not in possession of contraband and co-accused have been released, considering judicial custody and absence of criminal antecedents.
Bail may be granted when there is no direct evidence against the accused, especially if co-accused have been released and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and meets the twin conditions for 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.