SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 491

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
BHANWAR LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1114 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Anada Ram Choudhary, Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, DyGA

The court emphasized that the grant of bail is contingent upon the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to co-accused and the absence of factors against bail.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 15, and 29 - Bail application - Accused-petitioner contended that co-accused was granted bail, and no substantial case was made against him - The court found that factors against bail were not present, and the embargo under Section 37 was not applicable - High probability of prolonged trial justified bail. (Paras 2-4)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail is dependent on the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused and the nature of allegations - The court emphasized that the petitioner’s case stood on better footing than that of the co-accused. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS after being implicated based on conjectures, while co-accused Shyamlal had already been granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, citing the lack of factors against bail and the better footing of his case compared to the co-accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the status of the co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of factors against bail and the comparison with the co-accused warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the importance of individual case circumstances.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 of the BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.Particulars of the Case
1.FIR Number183/2021
2.Concerned Police StationRani
3.DistrictPali
4.Offences alleged in the FIRUnder Section 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act
5.Offences added, if any-
6.Date of passing of impugned order09.10.2024

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that co-accused Shyamlal has been granted bail by this court and the petitioner's case stands on better footing. He further submits that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 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. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor 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. Co- accused Shyamlal, on the strength of whose statement the petitioner has been implicated in this case, has been granted bail by this court and since the case of the petitioner stands on better footing than the case of the said co-accused, thus, he too deserves the same indulgence. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top