Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 923
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
LOKESH MEENA S/O BHANWAR LAL MEENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1894 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence for denying bail and the importance of the accused's cooperation in the investigation. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.06/2025 for alleged offences under the N.D.P.S. Act, asserting no direct involvement in the alleged transaction and readiness to cooperate. The prosecution claimed the accused was named by co-accused who had contraband.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed it just to allow the bail application, noting that the evidence against the accused was insufficient to warrant denial of bail.
Issues: The key issues were whether there was substantial evidence against the accused-petitioner and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere disclosure by co-accused without corroborative evidence does not justify denial of anticipatory bail; the accused's willingness to cooperate was a significant factor.
Result: Anticipatory bail granted.
Mr. Bhim Singh Meena, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Order :
1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.06/2025, registered at Police Station Vidhayek Puri, Jaipur City (South), for the offence(s) under Sections 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused there is no substantial evidence available on the record indicating the accused-petitioner has supplied the said contraband article to the other co-accused and no transaction was ever made between the petitioner and the other co-accused. The petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.
3. Learned GA-cum-AAG has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner. It is contended that from the other co-accused, the said contraband article was recovered, they have disclosed the name of the accused-petitioner and the accused-petitioner did not appear before the concerned Court and evading the proceedings, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.
4. Heard and perused the material available on the record.
5. Apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused there is no substantial evidence available on the record indicating the accused-petitioner has supplied the said contraband article to the other co-accused, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Lokesh Meena S/o Bhanwar Lal Meena, in connection with FIR No.06/2025, registered at Police Station Vidhayek Puri, Jaipur City (South), he shall be enlarged on bail he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
