HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Amrit @ Rahul – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.137/2022 registered at Police Station Mandafiya, Dist. Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 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 co-accused Ashok, on the basis of whose information supplied under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Ashok while he was in custody, there is not even an iota of evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
4. The order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court while enlarging co-accused Ashok in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11496/2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (48
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
The absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of 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.
The court ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
The court can grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in drug-related cases.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of witness examination can justify bail under the NDPS Act, overriding statutory restrictions.
Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.
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.