HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
LAXMI NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1917 / 2025
(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8 and 18 - Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner arrested for possession of opium - Co-accused released on bail due to contraband being below commercial quantity - No direct evidence against petitioner, only disclosure statements from co-accused - Court finds no apprehension of fleeing or re-offending - Bail granted. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Seriousness of allegations, evidence available, and prior criminal record of the accused are key factors in determining bail eligibility. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.77/2023 for offences under the NDPS Act. Co-accused persons had been granted bail as the contraband was below commercial quantity. The petitioner is in judicial custody with no prior criminal record.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the contraband was not recovered from the petitioner, and there was insufficient evidence to indicate his involvement in the crime.
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner and the seriousness of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any apprehension of him fleeing or re-offending warranted the granting of bail.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.77/2023 registered at Police Station Gangrar, Dist. Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 8/18 ofNDPS 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 in the present case, contraband (opium) weighing 1.700 Kgs, 1.500 Kgs and 1.500 Kgs. was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused persons namely Smt. Jyoti @ Jyoti, Smt. Shanti Bai and Smt. Manorama Bai. Learned counsel submitted that all the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2023 on the ground that the contraband recovered from their conscious possession is below commercial quantity.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused Smt. Jyoti @ Jyoti in the disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act divulged an information that she had procured the contraband (opium) weighing 4.700 Kgs. from the present petitioner.
5. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Smt. Jyoti @ Jyoti, there is no direct/ circumstantial evidence available on record indicating involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
6. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had supplied the contraband (opium) greater than commercial quantity to co- accused Smt. Jyoti @ Jyoti and, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the co- accused persons namely Smt. Jyoti @ Jyoti, Smt. Shanti Bai and Smt. Manorama Bai have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. This Court also prima facie finds that the contraband (opium) in the present case was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner; prima facie apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Smt. Jyoti @ Jyoti, there is no other direct evidence available on record indicating involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitionerLaxmi Narayan S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Rathore Teli arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.77/2023 registered at Police Station Gangrar, Dist. Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
The absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process justified the granting of bail.
The court granted bail based on the determination that the quantity of contraband supplied was below commercial threshold and the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents.
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.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the prior bail granted to co-accused, emphasizing the importance of these factors in bail considerations.
Bail may be granted when the petitioner is not in possession of contraband and co-accused have been released, considering judicial custody and absence of criminal antecedents.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for the release of accused if co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail.
The court granted bail due to lack of evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial duration, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to question the prosecution's case.
Bail may be granted when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and there is no evidence of reoffending.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.