KUPRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.02/2020 of Police Station NCB, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Ss. 8/18, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery of contraband was made from a motorcycle, which was being driven by co-accused Rawta Ram Bishnoi, whereas, the present petitioner and co-accused Mesaram Devasi were following the motorcycle in a car i.e. Scorpio Reg No. RJ-14-UF-1611. Counsel further submits that no recovery was made from the possession of the present petitioner. Further, no call details were found between the petitioner and the main accused Rawta Ram Bishnoi and there is no antecedent against the present petitioner. Earlier the petitioner was granted bail, but later on his bail was cancelled by the trial court. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody since 6/3/2024 and main accused Rawta Ram has already been granted bail by this Court on the ground that he remained in judicial custody for more than four years. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor, NCB has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the co-accused was granted bail merely on the ground that he was in judicial custody for more than four years, whereas the present petitioner previously remained in judicial custody for only six months and after cancellation of his bail, petitioner has been arrested on 6/3/2024. The petitioner was also present when the recovery was made from the main accused Rawta Ram and if the petitioner is released on bail, there are chances that he may commit same offence, therefore, the bail may not be granted to the present petitioner. Learned Special PP has relied upon the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by the Inspector of Police Vs. B. Ramu (2024 INSC 114), decided on 12/2/2024. I have considered the arguments advance before me as well as carefully gone through the material available on record.

(3.) The present petitioner remained in judicial custody earlier for about six months and now he is inside the jail since 6/3/2024 and it is an admitted fact that recovery of contraband was made from main accused- Rawta Ram and not from the present petitioner and the main accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The role of the present petitioner in this case is that he along with other co-accused was following the motorcycle. There are no criminal antecedents against the present petitioner and he is inside judicial custody since 6/3/2024. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.