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.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 22, and 29 - Bail application filed by the petitioner arrested in connection with an FIR for drug offences - Petitioner claims false implication based on co-accused's statements - Co-accused has been granted bail, and no substantial evidence links the petitioner to the crime - Bail granted considering the circumstances and lack of incriminating evidence. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Bail - Granting bail is a matter of discretion, taking into account the nature of the accusations, the evidence available, and the implications of continued detention - The court finds no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing or tampering with evidence. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a drug-related FIR, claiming false implication based on the statements of a co-accused who has already been granted bail. The investigation is concluded, and the petitioner has been in custody since December 2022. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is granted bail due to lack of substantial evidence connecting her to the crime and the fact that the co-accused has been released on bail. (Paras 6-8)

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner should be granted bail in light of the co-accused's release and the available evidence against her. (Paras 4-5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime and the precedent of the co-accused's bail warranted granting bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the discretionary nature of bail decisions. (Paras 7-8)

Result: Bail application allowed.

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 was in contact with the present petitioner and procured the prohibited drugs from him. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

6. The order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to the co-accused- Shiv Lal is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C . against the order impugned passed by learned Court below in connection with FIR No.0049/2021 registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sriganganagar for the offence(s) under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The accused- petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and has been implicated in the case based upon the statements of the co- accused Kamlesh, given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, from whom possession prohibited drugs was recovered. Apart from that there is no other substantial or incriminating evidence connecting the accused-petitioner in the alleged crime. Accused- petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2021. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. No useful would be served by keeping the accused- petitioners behind the bars till disposal of the case.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the bail application and contended that in the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act main accused has disclosed that he was in contact with the accused-petitioner through various calls and procured the prohibited drugs from the accused-petitioner. He fairly contended that there is no call record substantiating the statement rendered under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be rejected.

Heard. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that accused petitioner has been involved in the case on account of the statements of the co-accused and apart from the statements rendered under Section 67 of the NDPS Act there is no other substantial or incriminating evidence available on record connecting the present petitioner in the alleged crime. I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C . is allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioner- Shiv Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document