IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Salman Khan @ Balli - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB 2635 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/22, 8/29, and 8/25 - Bail application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for offences related to contraband possession - Co-accused previously granted bail; petitioner in custody since 27.08.2024 - FSL report indicates contraband below commercial quantity - Petitioner granted bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 5, 8)
(B) Bail Considerations - The court considers the duration of custody, the nature of the contraband, and the status of co-accused in bail decisions - Seriousness of allegations weighed against the principle of bail as a right. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is arrested for supplying contraband to co-accused, who was previously granted bail. The petitioner has been in custody for an extended period, with the trial expected to take a long time. The contraband is determined to be below commercial quantity based on the FSL report.
Findings of Court:
The court finds sufficient grounds to grant bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s long custody period and the nature of the contraband.
Issues: The main issues include the nature of the contraband, the status of co-accused, and the duration of the petitioner’s custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contraband's quantity and the co-accused's bail status were significant factors in granting bail, alongside the petitioner’s prolonged custody.
Result: Bail application allowed.
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.286/2024 registered at Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 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 Mohammad Ali @ Mohsin (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.731/2025) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he had supplied the recovered contraband to co- accused Mohammad Ali @ Mohsin from whose conscious possession, the contraband was recovered.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.08.2024; 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. The order dated 13.02.2025 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.286/2024, registered at Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur, for the offence under Sections 8/22, 8/29 & 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. This Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the FSL report of the contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
4. The FSL report dated 06.02.2025 has been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor before this Court, in compliance of the order dated 29.01.2025, which indicates that the contraband allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner is Mephedrone (MD) which is included in the list of psychotropic substance as per clause xxiii of Section 2 of the NDPS Act.
5. In view of the FSL report dated 06.02.2025, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner is below commercial quantity. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Consequently, this bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mohammad Ali @ Mohsin S/o Shri Mehboob Ali, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.286/2024, registered at Police Station Surajpole, 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.”
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against him, he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that above named co-accused Mohammad Ali @ Mohsin has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petition
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 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 under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the substance recovered was below commercial quantity and considering the precedent of co-accused being granted bail.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
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 granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the prior bail granted to co-accused, emphasizing the importance of these factors in bail considerations.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the release of a co-accused and absence of apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice.
The absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process justified the granting of bail.
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.
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.