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

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 70

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Jeevan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7324/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Laxman Bishnoi
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.

The court held that the accused's incarceration was not warranted as the quantity of contraband was below the commercial threshold, allowing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:The case concerns an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail by the accused-petitioner, Jeevan Singh, involved in FIR No. 33/2024, invoking the NDPS Act. The court determined that his incarceration is not warranted since the quantity of contraband is below the commercial threshold and bail is suitable given the potential for trial delay. The main issues were whether the bail could be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, to which the court reasoned that no strong case existed against the petitioner, leading to a conclusion that bail is to be granted. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed under the outlined conditions.

Table of Content
1. filing an application under section 439 cr.p.c. (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against the bail application. (Para 3)
3. court's determination on the facts of the case. (Para 4)
4. final ruling permitting bail with conditions. (Para 5)
ORDER

1.The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

    S.
    No.
    Particulars of the Case 1.FIR Number33/2024. 2.Concerned Police Station Nagana. 3.DistrictBarmer. 4.Offences alleged in the FIRU/Sec. 8, 18 of NDPS Act. 5.Offences added, if anyU/Sec. 29 of NDPS Act. 6.Date of passing of impugned order 28.05.2024. 2.It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the quantity. No case for the alleged offences is made out against him [CRLMB-7324/2024]
    (2 of 2) surmises. 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. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.

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.Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

5.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.

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