SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 924

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
JAVED @ JABBA S/O ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1988 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

In the absence of substantive evidence, bail may be granted to prevent prolonged custody, even for habitual offenders.

Headnote:(A) BNS - Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) - IT Act - Sections 66D and 66E - Arms Act - Sections 3/25 - Bail application - Accused-petitioner arrested in connection with FIR for supplying illegal arms - No substantive evidence against accused-petitioner apart from co-accused's disclosure - Accused-petitioner has been in custody for a considerable time - Bail application allowed with conditions. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Grant of bail is discretionary and depends on the facts of the case - In the absence of substantive evidence, bail may be granted to avoid prolonged custody. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner is implicated in a case involving illegal arms supply, with no direct evidence against him, and is a habitual offender with multiple cases registered.

Findings of Court:
The court found no substantive evidence against the accused-petitioner apart from the disclosure of a co-accused.

Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence for bail and the nature of the accused-petitioner's past criminal record.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of substantive evidence, it is just to grant bail, emphasizing the principle of not keeping an accused in prolonged custody without sufficient evidence.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.447/2024 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 308(2) of BNS and Sections 66D and 66E of IT Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he supplied the illegal arms to the other co-accused Aabid. Apart from the disclosure statement of other co-accused Aabid, there is no other substantive evidence available on record that the accused-petitioner supplied the illegal arm to the other co-accused Aabid. The accused- petitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that against the accused-petitioner, 12 criminal cases were registered under various offences and the accused-petitioner is a habitual offender, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the recovery of illegal arm was not effected from the present accused-petitioner, rather was found from the possession of the other co-accused Aabid, who has disclosed the accused-petitioner's name for supplying the arm to him. Apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused Aabid, there is no other substantive evidence available on record against the present petitioner, therefore, considering the above facts and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Javed @ Jabba S/o Ismail in connection with FIR No.447/2024 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg, 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 and as and when called upon to do so.

7. The accused is also directed to mark his presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioner to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Magistrate.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top