The High Court allowed a bail application for a petitioner accused under the NDPS Act. The Court granted bail based on the fact that main co-accused were already released and there was no direct evidence against the petitioner.
The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7275/2021
Mohd. Tufel S/o Mohd. Wasim, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Jaidpur P.S. Jaidpur, District Barabanki (U.P.). (At Present Lodged at District Jail Dungarpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
13/08/2021
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.97/2018, Police Station Bichiwada, District Dungarpur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that alleged contraband was recovered from the co-accused Jahid Ali and Afzal who has already been granted benefit of bail on the basis of decision of this Court rendered in the case of Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163 ; that there is no allegation is against the petitioner; neither the contraband was recovered from the petitioner nor he purchased or supplied the
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-7275/2021]
contraband; except to the statement of co-accused, there is no other evidence against the petitioner. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and stated that as per the factual report received from the concerned investigating officer, the alleged recovered contraband was loaded by the accused-petitioner; accusedpetitioner is in contact with the other co-accused but, on the query of this Court, learned Public Prosecutor stated that no call detail report in this regard is available on record.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per para 5 & 6 of the charge-sheet, only, mobile phone of the petitioner was used by the other co-accused; apart from that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner which is sufficient to link the petitioner in this case; charge-sheet has been filed; petitioner is behind the bars since 10.07.2018; trial of the case will take long time.
In view of the above, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that benefit of bail has been granted to the co-accused Jahid Ali and Afzal who are the main accused and there is no call detail report against the accused-petitioner; accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 10.07.2018; further trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the present bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Mohd. Tufel S/o Mohd.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-7275/2021]
Wasim, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.97/2018, Police Station Bichiwada, District Dungarpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) (out of which one shall be a local surety) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
23-Arvind/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a drug trafficking case considering co-accused have received bail.
Whether the lack of direct evidence and unavailability of call detail reports justifies the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Netram Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶13
_Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan_, reported in _2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163_
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd. Tufel S/o Mohd. Wasim
State of Rajasthan
DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
