Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Ravindra Kumar Latiyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.28/2024 registered at Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar, Dist. Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 8/22 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 contraband (MD) weighing 127 Gms. was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. The petitioner was not even present at the crime scene. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of co-accused Sahiram. Apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Sahiram, there is no direct evidence available on record indicating involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
4. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused persons namely Dharma Ram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10130/2024); Budh Ram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8892/2024) and Suresh Kumar (S.B. Criminal Misce
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.
The absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process justified the granting 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 granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
The principle of parity in bail decisions applies when co-accused are granted bail, especially when no contraband is recovered from the petitioner.
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 granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the release of a co-accused and absence of apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice.
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 absence of direct evidence against the accused and satisfaction of bail conditions under the NDPS Act justified the grant of bail.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
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
