Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MANGILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 9978 / 2024
(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8, 20, 29, and 37 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for offences under NDPS Act - Claims of false implication and lack of evidence connecting petitioner to contraband - Court finds petitioner a habitual offender with multiple pending cases, including NDPS - Evidence suggests financial transactions with co-accused - Twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied, leading to rejection of bail. (Paras 1-5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.94/2023 for offences under NDPS Act; claims contraband does not belong to him, but evidence indicates habitual offending and financial links with co-accused.
Findings of Court:
Court finds petitioner is a habitual offender and evidence does not support bail under NDPS Act conditions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be granted bail in light of previous offences and current evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, indicating potential for further criminal activity if released.
Result: Bail application rejected.
Order :
1. This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.94/2023, registered at Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur City East, for the offences under Sections 8/20 and 29 of NDPS 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 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The contraband (Ganja) recovered, in this case, does not belong to the petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers and the statements of the Investigating Officer- Hari Singh (PW.1), learned counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on an imaginary story, as there is nothing on record, to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences for which he has been arrested.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and an accused in 8 criminal cases. The details whereof read as under:-
| Sr. No. | FIR Number & Police Station | Case Number | Section Date | Status/ | Date of Arrest | Release on any Previous Occasion (If Any) | |
| 1. | 17/2006 iqfyl Fkkuk eFkkfu;k | - | 16/54 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e o /kkjk 308 Hkknala | - | 19/2006 - | - | ihVh |
| 2. | 40/2015 iqfyl Fkkuk djoM+] tks/kiqj | - | 341, 323, 325, 427 Hkknala | - | 70/2015- | - | ihVh |
| 3. | 41/2015 iqfyl Fkkuk djoM+] tks/kiqj | - | 341, 323/34 Hkknala | - | 71/2015- | - | ihVh |
| 4. | 442/2019, iqfyl Fkkuk e.Mksj | - | 447, 467, 468, 465, 384, 120 ch Hkknala | - | 466/2021 | - | |
| 5. | 382/2022, iqfyl Fkkuk mn;eafnj] tks/kiqj | - | 8/21, ,uMhih,l ,DV | - | 444/2022 | - | ihVh |
| 6. | 167/2022, iqfyl Fkkuk djoM+] tks/kiqj | - | 341, 323, 382, 143 | - | 79/2023 - | - | ihVh |
| 7. | 103/2021, iqfyl Fkkuk ekaxfy;kokl] vtesj | - | 8/15, ,uMhih,l ,DV | - | - | - | tSj vuqla/kku |
| 8. | 324/2022, iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh] fpRrkSM +x< | - | 379, 411, 414, Hkknala | - | - | - | tSj vuqla/kku |
5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The petitioner is presently facing trial in connection with 8 criminal cases out of which 2 relate to NDPS Act. This Court on a close scrutiny of the case file finds that apart from the disclosure statements of the main accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Investigating Agency has also obtained evidence indicating certain financial transactions amounting to lakhs of rupees between the petitioner and the co-accused persons.
6. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not in a position to record a finding that the twin conditions so enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are duly satisfied in the present case. In other words, at this stage, it cannot be said that if released on bail, the petitioner may not indulge in similar offences or in any criminal activities.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
The twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail; habitual offenders pose a risk of committing further offences if released.
Bail may be granted when the quantity of contraband is below commercial threshold and the accused has been in custody for an extended period.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
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.
The absence of direct evidence against a petitioner, solely relying on co-accused statements, justifies the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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 under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
The court emphasized the need to curtail drug consumption for the well-being of society and considered the danger of granting repeated chances to offenders who continue to indulge in unlawful activit....
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
