IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Narpat Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB 2258 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8, 22, and 29; Cr.P.C. - Section 439 - Bail application filed by the petitioner arrested under NDPS Act - Co-accused previously granted bail, with the court noting that the psychotropic substance recovered was below commercial quantity - The court emphasized that findings are for bail purposes only and do not affect the trial. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 8)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail applications - The court considered the duration of judicial custody and the filing of the challan, concluding that the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.56/2024 for offences under the NDPS Act. Co-accused have been granted bail, and the FSL report indicated the substances were not above commercial quantity.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail applications, ordering the petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and sureties. The court clarified that its findings were limited to the bail adjudication.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the circumstances of the case and the status of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of psychotropic substances below commercial quantity and the precedent of granting bail to co-accused justified the release of the petitioner on bail.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
1. The application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.56/2024 registered at Police Station Jhab, District Sanchore (Jalore) for the offences under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the NDPS Act .
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused persons namely Bhanwarlal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1318/2025), Budharam @ Bhutraram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1319/2025) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025; and the co-accused Pradeep Eram @ Peeraram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15807/2024) and Raju Ram @ Rajsa (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12992/2024) have also been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.01.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the challan against the present petitioner has already been filed before the competent Criminal Court and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
7. The order dated 14.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.56/2024, registered at Police Station Jhab, District Sanchore, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act .
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
This Court, with a view to find out as to whether the psychotropic substance recovered from the possession of the present petitioners is below commercial quantity or not, has directed learned Public Prosecutor to call for the FSL report of the recovered psychotropic substance.
The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record FSL report dated 23.12.2024 for a perusal of this Court. The relevant portion of the FSL report dated 23.12.2024 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“RESULT OF EXAMINATION
On micro chemical, chemical and instrumental analysis:-
Presence of any opium constituents/opium derivatives including heroin (diacetylmorphine), active constituents of cannabis, cocaine, methaqualone/meloqualone, Mephedrone, Amphetamine/Methamphetamine, MDMA/MDA, Barbiturates/Barbiturate derivatives and Benzodiazepines could not be detected in the sample packed in each of the packet marked S-1, S-2 and S-3.
The sample packed in each of the packet marked S-1 and S-2 gave positive tests for the presence of Potassium ions (K, [Ammonium ions (NH +), Aluminum ions (Al3+)]) and Chloride ions (Cl-).
The sample packed in the packet marked S-3 gave positive tests for the presence of and Sulphate ions (SO -2).”
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that on the basis of the FSL report dated 23.12.2024, it cannot be said that the psychotropic substance recovered from the present petitioners is above commercial quantity.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FSL report, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) are allowed. It is ordered that the accuse
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.
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 acquittal of co-accused and absence of contraband from the petitioner justify the granting of bail, indicating low likelihood of conviction.
Bail may be granted based on the nature of the contraband, duration of custody, and the status of co-accused, especially when the contraband is below commercial quantity.
The court established that possession of Psychotropic Substances below commercial quantity warrants bail, especially when the investigation is complete.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
Bail may be granted when the accused's role is not more severe than that of co-accused already granted bail, especially when trial may take a long time.
The court emphasized that when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioners, considering the lengthy trial duration.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.