Bail under NDPS Act requires stringent conditions; the court must find reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.

Order :

1. This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.265/2020, registered at Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 353 of IPC; Sections 3/25 of Arms Act; and Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. As per the prosecution, on 09.11.2020, SHO, Police Station Badi Sadri during routine nakabandi near Ramanujam School, Khermalia Road, Sarhad Khardewla, at about 09:50 pm., signalled one white coloured unnumbered Scorpio vehicle to stop. Upon seeing the police, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle accelerated the vehicle and the co-passenger of the vehicle started firing towards the police personnel. Due to the road being narrow, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle tried to flee from the scene by driving the car in reverse which collided with the stairs of a school situated nearby. Thereafter, the SHO, Badi Sadri alongwith his police team chased the Scorpio vehicle whereupon the driver and the co- passenger of the vehicle left the car on the side of the road and by taking advantage of the night time, managed to flee from the grip of the police. As per the prosecution, when the abandoned offending vehicle was searched, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 4 quintals and 40 kgs. was recovered from 22 black coloured plastic sacks being transported in the offending vehicle.

3. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the contraband greater than commercial quantity was being transported by the co-accused persons namely Mukesh Kumar and Bhajanlal. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he alongwith the co-accused persons namely Govardhan, Bhajanlal and Mukesh got the contraband (poppy husk/straw) loaded in two vehicles upon directions of the co-accused- Raju @ Rajendra. During the course of investigation, it was also revealed that on the very same day when the petitioner along with co-accused Govardhan was transporting the contraband (poppy husk/straw) in another vehicle Isuzu, a police team of P.S. Sindhari, District Barmer had intercepted their Isuzu vehicle upon which they had also fled from the scene by showing pistol to the police personnel and later on the petitioner was arrested by the team of P.S.Dhorimanna.

4. Learned senior counsel Shri Anand Purohit vehemently and fervently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers and the statements of the Seizure Officer (PW.2) and the Investigating Officer (PW.4) recorded before the competent criminal Court, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused Bhajanlal while he was in police custody. Learned senior counsel submitted that the material available on record clearly indicates that except the confessional statements of co-accused Bhajanlal and Mukesh Kumar involving themselves and the petitioner in the alleged crime, nothing new has been brought forth by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation.

5. Learned senior counsel submitted that though it has come on record that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and more than 8 NDPS cases have been lodged against him but he was not convicted in any of those cases. It was contended that the petitioner is still an accused and not a convict and therefore, he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty before the compe