Single judge High Court rejected second bail application in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of tramadol. Court relied on NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, holding statutory safeguards mandatory and Article 142 authority inapplicable to High Courts.
Bail prayer under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitions stands dismissed.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:24685]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12630/2023
Sita Ram S/o Shree Krishna Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Suratgarh, Dist. Shri Ganganagar (Lodged In Sub Jail, Suratgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP Through V.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Through Video Conferencing
Order
29/05/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:24685]
[CRLMB-12630/2023]
(2 of 4)
of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the other coaccused, who has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench.
"18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not
(3 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:24685]
[CRLMB-12630/2023]
been satisfied in the facts of the instant case, At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty to the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act."
Daulat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015(2)
Crimes 695 (Raj.) has observed as under:-
“The authority of Hon’ble the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary authority and that is not abide by the statutory provisions. The power available can very well be exercised beyond statutory limits if that is required for dispensing complete justice in any case. It shall be pertinent to notice here that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, as such, the binding effect in the form of precedent is available to the judgments declaring law by the Apex Court. Article 142 of the Constitution of India nowhere refers judgments but decree or order. The decrees or orders passed by the Apex Court while exercising its extraordinary authority under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken as precedent. It shall also be appropriate to mention that the Constitution of India nowhere prescribes any authority to High Courts akin to the powers available to Hon’ble the Supreme Court as per Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. This Court, thus, is required to operate within the four corners of the statutes applicable. The resultant is that Hon’ble Supreme Court may grant release on bail or suspension of sentence without getting itself satisfied with the requirements of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, if that is necessary for doing complete justice, such an authority, however, I snot available to the High Court or the trial court, as the case may be. As al-
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:24685]
[CRLMB-12630/2023]
ready stated, the order passed in the case of Mansingh (supra) is a reflection of the authority exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thus, is not having an authority of precedent for the High Court or judgments given in the case of Dadu alias Tulsidas V. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Rattan Mallik (supra) are laying down law, hence, are having binding effect and those are required to be adhered in their true spirit”.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Ashwani Kr Srivastava/-9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted under Section 37 NDPS Act solely on grounds of long incarceration and secured bail for co-accused.
Whether the Supreme Court authority under Article 142 can be used by High Courts to grant bail without satisfying statutory conditions.
Whether establishing reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty is mandatory for bail in commercial quantity narcotic cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Distinguished¶2136
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.915 of 2023
Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of OdishaReferred¶2136
Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit AggarwalApplied¶736
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613
Daulat Singh Vs. State of RajasthanDistinguished¶2835
Daulat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015(2) Crimes 695 (Raj.)
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sita Ram S/o Shree Krishna Lal
State Of Rajasthan
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
