Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Salman Khan @ Balli – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 or
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.
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
