On behalf of an arrested accused facing charges under the NDPS Act for possession of poppy straw, the High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable as the recovery was from a vehicle. It further ruled that delay in trial did not justify bail under Section 37.
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:16247]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8731/2023
Ajay Kumar S/o Baldev Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Chakmalan P.s. Khelewal, Dist. Hoshiyarpur (Punjab). (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Bhagirath RayBishnoi |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Gaurav Singh-PP |
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
08/04/2024
The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.157/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar Chittor District Chittorgarh for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that compliance of standing order dated 15.03.1988 was not made. Learned counsel further contends that the provisions of Sections 50 & 52 of the NDPS Act have also not been complied with and the accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two and a half years. Therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.
(2 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:16247]
[CRLMB-8731/2023]
In support of contentions, learned counsel places his reliance on the following judgments passed by Hob’ble Apex Court:-
Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor places his reliance upon the judg- - ment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nar cotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Agarwal Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.6128-6129 of 2021 decided on 19.07.2022.
Heard and perused the material placed on record.
Having heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and looking to the facts of the case and from the bare perusal of the prosecution story it is apparent that 860 kg of poppy straw was recovered from Truck bearing registration No.PB-08-DG-9072 and accused-petitioner was found with the possession of the alleged commercial quantity of recovered poppy straw.
It is also pertinent to mention that the said recovery of alleged quantity of poppy straw was effected from the vehicle and not from the personal search of the accused-petitioner. Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only when personal search is made.
The object of Section 51 of the NDPS Act is to check the misuse of power to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimize the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies.
[2024:RJ-JD:16247]
[CRLMB-8731/2023]
(3 of 4)
In the present case, the recovery of contraband article was effected from a vehicle and not from the personal search of the accused-petitioner. Therefore, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable.
As far as non-compliance of Section 52 & 52-A of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is a matter of evidence and at this juncture, it is not desirable to express anything upon the non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
Under the provisions of Section 36 of the NDPS Act, the Court is expected to focus on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with. In the present case, there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences for that he has been charged with.
As far as delay in trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Agarwal (supra) categorically held that:-
“In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not 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 of 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 NDPS Act”
[2024:RJ-JD:16247]
[CRLMB-8731/2023]
(4 of 4)
The record demonstrates that two witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has unable to show the latest position regarding exact number of witnesses examined by the learned trial Court till date.
In the light of law described above, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail solely on the ground of delay in the trial.
Hence, the bail application filed on behalf of accused-petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
14-Rahul Joshi/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner on grounds of delay in trial and non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act.
Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies when contraband is recovered from a vehicle and not from the accused during a personal search.
Whether the delay in trial and length of custody constitute reasonable grounds for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Kumar S/o Baldev Ram
State Of Rajasthan
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
