Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 828
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
MOHANLAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1706 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 : S.8,S.22,S.29
Headnote
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court emphasized that mere statements from co-accused without supporting evidence do not justify prolonged incarceration. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner was charged under the NDPS Act based primarily on a co-accused's statement, with no direct evidence linking him to the alleged crime.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the evidence against him was insufficient, and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail was maintained.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the evidence against the petitioner justified his detention and the applicability of bail under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct evidence and the reliance on a co-accused's statement were insufficient to justify continued incarceration, and emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 105/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Chopasni Housing Board |
| 3. | District | Jodhpur City West |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/22 r.w. Section 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 07.12.2024 |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner has been booked in this case with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Neither he was present at the spot where the recovery was made nor any incriminating material has been recovered at this instance. Except the confessional statement made by the principal accused to a police, while in police custody mentioning the name of the petitioner as a facilitator of the crime; there is nothing on record so as to justify his further detention. The Seizing Officer has been examined in the trial, who admits that when the recovery was affected from the principal accused, he did not disclose the name of the petitioner. Simply on the basis of statement of the co-accused without any coordination would not make the long incarceration of the petitioner justifiable. Co- accused Vinod Jain has already been enlarged on bail this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 passed in S.B.Crl. Revision Petition No.44/2025. The embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in way of granting bail.
6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has been booked on the basis of confessional statement of principal accused only and further that co-accused Vinod has already bailed out, thus, maintaining parity, this Court is inclined to accept the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
