Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
RAMDEV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.194/2021 registered at Police Station Bheem, District Rajsamand for the offences under Sections 8/29 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 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co- accused Sunil Dudy (CRLMB 7587/2023) co-accused Prakash (CRLMB 12476/2023) have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 4.7.2023 and 20.5.2024.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards FIR and challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contraband greater than commercial quantity was not seized from the active possession of the present petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that the recovered contraband was being transported by the present petitioner in the offending vehicle or he was escorting the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that as per the challan papers submitted
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 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 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the release of a co-accused and absence of apprehension of the petitioner fleeing justice.
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 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.
Compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is essential for evidence validity; prolonged judicial custody without trial examination raises constitutional concerns, allowing bail despite stringent N....
The court may grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged offences, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Bail may be granted when there is no direct evidence against the accused, especially if co-accused have been released and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the petitioner's direct involvement is not established, and there is a lack of evidence sho....
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
