Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
CHUNA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.250/2023 registered at Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the 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 as per the prosecution, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 60 Kgs. was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused Khinya Ram and Kishore Ram. Learned counsel submitted that the co- accused persons, in the information supplied by them under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, stated that they have procured the recovered contraband from the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Khinya Ram (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.7771/2024) and Kishore Ram (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.6421/2024), from whose conscious possession the contraband has been recovered,
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 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 based on the determination that the quantity of contraband supplied was below commercial threshold and the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents.
Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.
Bail may be granted when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and there is no evidence of reoffending.
The court granted bail based on insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of parity with a co-accused already released on bail.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and fulfillment of conditions under the NDPS Act.
Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act when the accused is not in direct possession of contraband and meets the twin conditions for bail.
The court ruled that non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act rendered the evidence inadmissible, justifying bail for the petitioner.
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
