Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Shashi Bharti – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
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.49/2021, registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, for offence under Sections8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The accused- petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and has been implicated in the present case solely upon the statements of the co-accused- Shiv Lal who has already been enlarged on bail in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7657/2022 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel submitted that since the similarly situated co-accused- Shiv Lal has already been released on bail, the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 16.12.2022 and against whom the investigation has already been concluded, deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the co-accused has disclosed that he wa
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.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
Bail can be granted when the accused is not a flight risk and the case is similar to that of a co-accused who was previously granted bail.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence linking the accused-petitioners to the recovered articles and the alleged false implication in the case.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail.
The court established that in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not bar the granting of bail.
The court can grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The principle of parity in bail decisions applies when co-accused are granted bail, especially when no contraband is recovered from the petitioner.
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.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
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
