Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedSunil v. State of Rajasthan
2023:RJ-JD:21793
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8443/2023
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 14 July 2023
- Bench
- Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 21, 37, 50; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
Final Outcome
The third bail application was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond and two sureties to the trial court’s satisfaction, undertaking to appear on all dates; he and his sureties must also file bank account details and Aadhaar and passbook copies (para 11).
Key holdings
- Mindful of the Section 37 fetters, the Court found the seizure procedure in the challan papers prima facie showed no compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit (para 7).
- Custody since 02.02.2022, completed investigation, a filed challan and the investigating officer’s examination were weighed for bail (para 7).
- The Section 37 conditions were taken to be satisfied without going into the merits (para 8).
- The accused had substantial grounds to question the prosecution case and was entitled to bail (paras 9-10).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The petitioner was apprehended in Jodhpur on 02.02.2022, allegedly carrying 310 grams of smack on his person, and has been in custody since (para 3). A charge-sheet was filed and the investigating officer was examined as PW-1 (para 3). His first two bail applications were not pressed (para 1). In this third Section 439 CrPC application he alleged that the Section 50 notices were forged: his notice bore the co-accused’s signature of receipt, and a later notice lacked the witnesses’ signatures, FIR number, offence and police station (para 4). The Public Prosecutor replied that these were issues for the trial, that Section 50 was complied with and that Section 37 applied to the commercial quantity seized (para 6).
Court's Findings
The Court said it was aware of the fetters imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act (para 7). Having considered the petitioner’s submissions, it noted in particular that the procedure adopted by the seizure officer during the alleged seizure, as seen from the challan papers, prima facie did not show compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit (para 7). It recorded that the petitioner had been in custody since 02.02.2022, that there were prima facie serious doubts about compliance with Section 50(1), that investigation was complete, that the challan had been presented and that the investigating officer’s statement as PW-1 had been recorded (para 7). On that view it declined to go into the merits and held that the conditions of Section 37 should be taken to be satisfied for ordering the accused’s release on bail (para 8). Without commenting further on the merits, and with reference to the material placed before it, the Court found that the accused had substantial grounds to question the prosecution case, so he was entitled to bail (paras 9-10). The order makes no finding that the notices were in fact forged (paras 8-9).
Legal Principle
Where the challan papers themselves prima facie raise serious doubt about compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in a personal search, and investigation is complete with the investigating officer examined, the Section 37 conditions may be taken as satisfied and bail granted without deciding the merits (paras 7-9).
