Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
NARENDRA CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.241/2024 registered at Police Station Ahore, District Jalore, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, 1480 tablets of TROMA-100 SR (Tramadol Hydrochloride Sustained Release Tablets IP 100 mg), 1250 tablets of Alpram 0.5 (Alprazolam Tablets IP 0.5 mg.) and 30 tablets of ULTRA KING (Tramadol Hydrochloride & amp; Aeetaminophen Tablets USP) have been recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused Sitaram. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Sitaram without there being any direct/circumstantial evidence available against him on record.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that total weight of the alleged contraband has not been mentioned by the i
The absence of total weight of contraband in the charge-sheet raises doubts about the validity of recovery, warranting bail.
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.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the absence of any risk of fleeing or re-offending.
The absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process justified the granting of bail.
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 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 granted bail based on the determination that the quantity of contraband supplied was below commercial threshold and the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents.
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 ruled that the petitioners were not in conscious possession of contraband and satisfied the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act.
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.
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
