Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
RAJVINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.VIII(IO)08/NCB/JZU/2021 registered at Police Station NCB, Jodhpur, for offences under Section 8(C), 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused person namely Sukhpreet Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15090/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 on the ground that he is in judicial custody since 12.06.2021 for last more than 3 years and 7 months and till date out of total 9 cited prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witnesses has been examined before competent Criminal Court.
3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.06.2021; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness o
Prolonged judicial custody and lack of prosecution witness examination justify granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of witness examination can justify bail under the NDPS Act, overriding statutory restrictions.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without significant progress in prosecution can justify bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of timely trials.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence over statutory restrictions on bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an unreasonable period.
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
Bail may be granted when the accused has not played an active role in the alleged crime and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
The court emphasized that if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail for the petitioner.
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
