The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8, 15, and 29 - Bail application - Second application for bail filed by the petitioner arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.210/2024 for offences under NDPS Act - Co-accused previously granted bail, and no contraband recovered from the petitioner’s possession - Petitioner in judicial custody with trial expected to take a long time - Court finds insufficient evidence against the petitioner to deny bail. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7)

(B) Right to Bail - The court considers the principle of parity, as the co-accused has been granted bail, and the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the crime. (Paras 2 and 6)

(C) Judicial Discretion - The court exercises discretion to grant bail without prejudice to the merits of the case, emphasizing that findings are limited to the bail application. (Paras 5 and 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested based on information regarding contraband concealed by a co-accused. The petitioner claims no evidence links him to the crime, and he has been in custody while the trial is pending.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the contraband was not recovered from the petitioner, and insufficient evidence exists to suggest involvement in the alleged crime, allowing bail.

Issues: The main issues are whether the petitioner should be granted bail based on the absence of evidence and the precedent of co-accused being released on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of evidence and the principle of parity with the co-accused justified granting bail, noting that findings are not to prejudice the trial.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.210/2024 registered at Police Station chhattargarh, Dist. Bikaner, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Nawal Kishore (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15930/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail; the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan against him has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

5. The order dated 04.03.2025 passed by this Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“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.210/2024 registered at Police Station Chhattargarh, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of NDPS.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, SHO Chattargarh on 06.08.2024 received a reliable information that huge quantity of contraband (poppy husk/straw) has been concealed by the co-accused- Sitaram Gurjar in his fields situated at Chak 02, LKD. After verifying the said information and after following the procedure provided under the NDPS Act, the police team of P.S. Chattargarh searched the field of co- accused- Sitaram Gurjar and recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 84.850 kgs. from 6 sacks. Co- accused- Sitaram in the information divulged by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that the recovered contraband was concealed in his fields by his son Manoj @ Chandu and his friends which they had procured from co-accused- Hem Singh S/o Shaitan Singh.

Learned counsel submitted that contraband in the present case has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. The petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion and few phone calls with co-accused- Manoj @ Chandu with whom he is having an old acquaintance. Manoj @ Chandu has not shown any involvement of the petitioner in commission of alleged crime.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

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.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, learned Public Prosecutor, apart from phone calls of the present petitioner with the co-accused- Manoj @ Chandu, was unable to show any other material on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband (poppy husk/straw) was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner; the phone calls transcript of telephonic conversation between the petitioner and co-accused Manoj @ Chandu is not sufficient to establish involvement of petitioner in commission

Click Here to Read the rest of this document