HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
DINESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 793 / 2025
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1.This 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.22/2023 registered at Police Station Jhab, Dist. Jalore, for the offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, 67 Gms. of contraband (MD) was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Ramgopal. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the recovered contraband was procured by the co-accused Ramgopal from the present petitioner.
3. It was contended that the co-accused Ramgopal (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.8926/2024) has already been dated 20.09.2024. It was submitted that since the co-accused Ramgopal from whose conscious possession, contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered has already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner who is in judicial custody and investigation against whom has already been completed, also deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Lastly, 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. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present case, contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered by the investigating agency and therefore, the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused Ramgopal from whose conscious possession, contraband (MD) was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case particularly keeping in view the fact that the co-accused Ramgopal from whose conscious possession, contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The prosecution 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. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.22/2023 registered at Police Station Jhab, Dist. Jalore, 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.
9. 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.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the release of a co-accused and absence of apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
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 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.
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.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the prior bail granted to co-accused, emphasizing the importance of these factors in bail considerations.
Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent N....
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
The court may grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged offences, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
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.