Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
Deepak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
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.756/2024, registered at Police Station Anupgarh, District Anupgarh, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the psychotropic substance Tramadol Tablets was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. Learned counsel contended that as per the prosecution, the recovered psychotropic substance was procured by the co- accused- Charanjeet Singh from the present petitioner as well as the co-accused- Pawan Kumar S/o Hari Singh Kaamra.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused- Pawan Kumar S/o Hari Singh Kaamra has already been enlarged on bail by the Court of Additional Session Judge No.1, Anupgarh, District Shri Ganganagar vide order dated 21.02.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enl
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for granting bail when a co-accused has already been released, especially in the absence of criminal antecedents and when no recovery was made from....
The absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the supply of psychotropic substances, alongside the bail granted to co-accused, justified the approval of bail.
The court granted bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the substance recovered was below commercial quantity and considering the precedent of co-accused being granted bail.
Prolonged judicial custody and trial delays can justify bail under the NDPS Act, even for serious offences, if the accused are not responsible for the delays.
The acquittal of co-accused and absence of contraband from the petitioner justify the granting of bail, indicating low likelihood of conviction.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
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.
Bail may be granted if the accused is in judicial custody, the trial will take a long time, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses.
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
