Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Farukh Khan @ Bachchiya Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB / 2562 / 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 8/22 - Bail application - Accused-petitioner contended that no case was made out against him, and his continued incarceration was unwarranted; he highlighted that co-accused had been granted bail and that the trial had not concluded after three years with only one of 23 witnesses examined. The court noted the principle of parity and the likelihood of prolonged trial, leading to the decision to grant bail. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Bail - The court emphasized that the grounds for granting bail included the absence of a strong case against the accused and the duration of the trial process, which warranted consideration for bail. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner faced charges under the NDPS Act, and the trial had been significantly delayed, with only one witness testifying.
Findings of Court:
The application for bail was granted based on parity with a co-accused and the protracted nature of the trial.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence against the accused and the justification for granting bail despite opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of parity justified bail given the circumstances of the case and the lengthy trial.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 150/2022 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Goluwala |
| 3. | District | Hanumangarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 11.11.2024 |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Seeta Ram (Bail Application No.15892/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2025. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of the case of the co-accused Seeta Ram who has already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that three years have elapsed but the trial has not been concluded till now. Only one witness has been examined out of 23 witnesses.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Co- accused Seeta Ram has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.02.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15892/2024. Thus, on the ground of parity and considering the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the principle of parity and the extended duration of the trial, emphasizing the lack of strong evidence against the accused.
The court emphasized the principle of parity in granting bail, particularly when co-accused have been released under similar circumstances.
Insufficient evidence, primarily based on co-accused statements, does not justify prolonged incarceration; bail granted maintaining parity with co-accused.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial over statutory restrictions on bail, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration without trial.
The court emphasized that the grant of bail is contingent upon the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to co-accused and the absence of factors against bail.
The absence of charge-sheet and lack of evidence connecting the accused to the crime justified the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for granting bail to an accused when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court established that the principle of parity in bail applications is crucial when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence over statutory restrictions on bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an unreasonable period.
Bail may be granted when the accused is implicated based on co-accused statements without substantial evidence, especially if similar co-accused have been 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
