Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Lalita W/O Sh. Sanjay Beragi vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 17114/2021
Smt. Lalita W/o Sh. Sanjay Beragi, R/o Bhagwanpura, P.S.
Neemuch City, Dist. Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh (At Present
Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau, Through Spl. P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Reserved on 30/09/2022
Pronounced on 13/10/2022
1. The instant 4th bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-
applicant was arrested in connection with FIR (Unit Case) No.
03/2016 VIII(IO)03/NCB/ASZ/2016 registered at Police Station
Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) District Ajmer for the offence(s)
under Sections 8/21, 8/25 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has
submitted that the accused-applicant is in custody since
08.07.2016. Learned counsel further submitted that trial is at
verge of disposal and the lady-applicant has been incarcerated for
more than five years now. Learned counsel also submitted that
such long incarceration with no foreseeable end of trial is a
violation of personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-17114/2021]
accused-applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, as per
learned counsel, mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act were also not followed. Learned counsel also relied upon the
judgments of Coordinate Bench in SB Cr. Misc. VIIth Bail App.
No. 3701/2022 titled as Savanta S/o Shri Sukhdev Vs. State
of Rajasthan dated 24.04.2022, S.B. Cri. Misc. IV Bail App.
No. 14677/2021 titled as Banwari Meena Vs. State of Raj.
dated 22.07.2022 and Apex Court judgment in Ram Saran Pal @
Lallu Vs. State of UP: (2018) 13 SCC 260. Learned counsel
contended that on account of protracted trial and long
incarceration of accused-applicant without conviction and in the
light of the above mentioned judgments passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court, accused-
applicant should be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. He has further submitted that NDPS
Act is a special piece of legislation and in the case in hand,
provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act were strictly followed and
recovery was made in accordance with law, by Lady Officer Sunita
Mandia, after taking oral and written statements of the concerned.
Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that commercial
quantity of 373 gms of contraband goods i.e. Herion, was
recovered from possession of accused-applicant. Learned Public
Prosecutor argued that the accused-applicant should not be
released on bail as offence in question is heinous offence
attracting punishment of 20 years of conviction. Learned Public
Prosecutor has also relied upon the Apex Court judgment of State
of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. reported in (2020) 12 SCC
122 and submitted that as per Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act, the
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-17114/2021]
NDPS Act has an overriding effect over provisions of Cr.P.C., with
regard to grant of bail and limiations imposed upon the same.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the record, it is analyzed that prima
facie provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act was duly followed. In
the case of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court has held that
NDPS ACT is a special piece of legislation and until and unless
there are "reasonable grounds" - which means something more
than prima facie grounds and contemplates substantial probable
cause - to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
offence, bail should not be granted, unlike the general law of bail
as rule and jail as an exception. In the case in hand, provisions of
Section 436A are also not applicable as the maximum period of
sentence which can be imposed is of 20 years and the applicant
has not undergone half of that sentence. The reasonable cause
explained under Section 37(2) is not made out at this stage. The
judgment of Apex Court cited by the accused-applicant is
distinguishable as Apex Court judgment of Ram Saran (supra) is
not pertaining to NDPS Act. Other judgments cited by learned
counsel for the accused-applicant are distinguishable on facts as
none of them considered the dictum of Apex Court judgment of
Rajesh & Ors. (supra).
5. In light of the above, this 4th bail application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
