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.

Headnote:
(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8/22 and 29 - Bail application filed by the petitioner arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.28/2024 for offences under NDPS Act - Contraband not recovered from petitioner's possession; petitioner not present at crime scene - Co-accused already granted bail - Petitioner in judicial custody, trial will take time - Benefit of bail granted. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of the evidence against the accused and the circumstances of the case - The court noted that the absence of recovery from the petitioner’s possession and the bail granted to co-accused are significant factors. (Paras 3, 4, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for alleged involvement in drug offences, with the contraband not found in his possession. Co-accused have been granted bail, and the petitioner is in judicial custody awaiting trial which is expected to take a long time.

Findings of Court:
The court found no direct evidence against the petitioner and noted the bail granted to co-accused persons, leading to the decision to grant bail to the petitioner as well.

Issues: The main issues were the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the status of co-accused who were already granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the lack of recovery from the petitioner and the prior granting of bail to co-accused were compelling reasons to grant bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Result: Bail application allowed.

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 Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12142/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 respectively.

5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed before the competent criminal Court and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the contraband in the present case was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view the fact that the co-accused persons namely Dharma Ram, Budh Ram and Suresh Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ravindra Kumar Latiyal S/o Dinesh Kumar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.28/2024 registered at Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar, Dist. Bikaner, 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.

9. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document