Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
KISHAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 01/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | CBN Udaipur |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Under Sections 8/18 C, 8/19, 8/26, 8/28, 8/29 and 8/30 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 21.11.2024 |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. The petitioner is incarcerated in this cas
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to lack of specific allegations against the accused and the lengthy trial ahead, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence for incarceration.
The right to liberty is fundamental, and bail may be granted despite statutory restrictions when circumstances justify it, emphasizing the importance of timely trials.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. even in cases involving serious allegations under the NDPS Act, provided the circumstances warrant such a decision.
The court considered the lengthy trial process and absence of other pending cases in granting bail to the accused-petitioner for the offense under the NDPS act.
Bail is the rule at the pre-conviction stage, and prolonged incarceration without trial is unjustified, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
Provisional liberty can override statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act when trial delays are evident, emphasizing the fundamental right to personal liberty.
The court applied the provisions of Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act and considered the lack of prescribed quantity for opium poppy plants in granting bail to the petitioner.
The court ruled that restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when no defined quantity for commercial classification exists, allowing bail.
The court emphasized that personal liberty must be prioritized over statutory restrictions in granting bail, especially when there are violations of mandatory provisions.
Insufficient evidence, primarily based on co-accused statements, does not justify prolonged incarceration; bail granted maintaining parity with co-accused.
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
