Allowed

Nepal Singh v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2024CRLMB/2334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. relying on the principle of parity with a coordinate bench that released a similarly situated co-accused. The court held that prolonged custody exceeding three years mandates bail despite restrictions under the NDPS Act.

What did the court decide?

The accused-petitioner is to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Nepal Singh Vs Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:29487]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2334/2024

¶4

Nepal Singh S/o Shri Jabbar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Bethwasiya, Pandit Ji Ki Dhani, Ps Osian, Dist Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Ncb

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R.Pareek, Spl. P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶11

19/07/2024

¶12

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:

¶13

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	VIII(IO)21/NCB/JZU/202 0
2.	Concerned Police Station	Narcotic Control Bureau Regional Unit
3.	District	Jodhpur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act
5.	Offences added,if any
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	15.02.2024

¶14

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

¶15

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and 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

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:29487]

[CRLMB-2334/2024]

accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶20

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.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶22

Since the similar situated accused Girdhar Singh has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2024. It would be no justification to keep the petitioner behind the bars for a single minute. The said order is being reproduced hereinunder:-

¶23

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. VIIIIO)21/NCB/JZU/2020 of Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Regional Unit, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 8/18, 25, 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is inside the jail since 18.12.2020 and till date, only five prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of total eleven witnesses and the trial is yet pending. There is no other criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

¶25

In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the recent order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:-

¶26

"3. We are informed that, the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

(3 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:29487]

[CRLMB-2334/2024]

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2^nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act."

¶31

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court's power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, observed as under:

¶32

"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part - III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."

¶33

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as follows:

[2024:RJ-JD:29487]

[CRLMB-2334/2024]

(4 of 6)

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶38

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.

¶39

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of 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." Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the decision dated 28.03.2023 rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:29487]

[CRLMB-2334/2024]

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023, wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that delay in Copy – Not Omicial trial can also be considered for releasing accused person on bail despite the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain's case (supra), the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶44

The petitioner is inside the jail for more than three years and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶45

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the recovered contraband is commercial quantity, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the petitioner.

¶46

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the progress report as well as material available on record.

¶47

It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of more than three years and the trial is still going on. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the embargo put on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act is not a total bar. In the provision, certain exceptions exist within Section 37 itself and for those exceptions, bail can be granted. In the present case, the petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of more than three years, therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to invoke the rigor envisaged under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

¶48

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Girdhar Singh S/o Ishwar Singh shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No. VIIIIO)21/NCB/JZU/2020 of Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Regional Unit, Jodhpur provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/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.

¶49

Since the case of the petitioner and the accused Girdhar Singh is squarely identical having no distinguishable feature, therefore, on the ground of parity, to maintain judicial

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:29487]

[CRLMB-2334/2024]

discipline and consistency, it is felt apt to allow the bail application. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶54

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.

¶55

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶56

33-Samvedana/-

Nepal Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepal Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehboob Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Lal Maru Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Karni Dan Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Bissa Vs the Principal Secretary