IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Salman Khan @ Balli - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB 2621 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 22 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested under FIR No.342/2024, sought bail citing that co-accused had been granted bail, arguing that his case is not worse than theirs - The court noted that the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime was not more severe than that of co-accused, thus granting bail without delving into the merits of the case. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial custody - The petitioner was in judicial custody and the trial would take a considerable time, warranting consideration for bail. (Paras 4, 6)
(C) Personal bond and sureties - The court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each. (Para 7)
Order :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
1. This application for bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.342/2024 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused persons namely Smt. Anita @ Angel (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8654/2024); Himanshi @ Nannu (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10123/2024); Saddam Hussain @ Kankroli @ Aslam (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12668/2024); and Imran (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15551/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 24.07.2024, 12.08.2024, 11.11.2024 and 13.02.2025 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not worse than that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed against the present petitioner 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 above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that role assigned to the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime is not worse than that of above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Salman Khan @ Balli S/o Saleem Khan arrested in connection with FIR No.342/2024 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
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 when the accused has not played an active role in the alleged crime and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
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.
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
The court emphasized that if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail for the petitioner.
Prolonged judicial custody and lack of prosecution witness examination justify granting bail under the NDPS Act.
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.