HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Surendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRLMB / 2854 / 2025
Order :
1. This application for bail has been filed under Section 483 BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.117/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 815 and 8/29 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 as per the prosecution, a police team of Police Station, Nimbahera on 07.03.2024, during routine nakabandi of the area falling under the jurisdiction flagged down one Innova Car bearing Registration No.RJ-14-UE-3019. However, the driver of the offending vehicle being co-accused Bhairulal managed to flee from the scene. Upon an interrogation of the co-accused Govind Kumar and upon a search of the offending vehicle, the contraband (Poppy Husk/Straw) weighing 219 kgs. and 200 gms. was recovered. The co-passenger of the offending vehicle, i.e. co-accused Govind Kumar on being asked, could not show any valid license to possess or transport the recovered contraband. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused persons namely Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayka and Simrat was escorting the offending vehicle and they were not arrested from the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused persons namely Surendra and Gagan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11853/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the investigating officer (PW-2) has already been recorded before the competent Criminal Court and the investigating officer during his cross-examination has admitted that apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused persons, there is nothing on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged no bail by this Court. However, he was also not in a position to refute the fact that the investigating officer during his cross-examination has admitted that apart from the disclosure statements of the co- accused persons, there is nothing on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.
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. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Surendra S/o Gopilal Rayaka shall be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.117/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
In the absence of substantial evidence against the accused and the grant of bail to co-accused, bail should be granted to ensure parity.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail.
Bail may be granted when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and there is no evidence of reoffending.
Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and meets the twin conditions for bail.
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient grounds for continued detention based on the nature of the charges and comparison with a co-accused already granted bail.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
Bail may be granted when the petitioner is not in possession of contraband and co-accused have been released, considering judicial custody and absence of criminal antecedents.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for the release of accused if co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail.
Bail granted based on lack of conscious possession of contraband and previous bail granted to co-accused, emphasizing the trial's expected duration.
Bail may be granted if the accused shows no knowledge of the contraband and has been in custody for a significant time, despite the seriousness of the charges.
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.