Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

: Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 16/04/2025 Order

1. This third bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.113/2023 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The previous bail application (No.163/2024) was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of the Seizure Officer. He, however, submits that trial has not commenced yet despite lapse of more than one year. He also contends that the learned trial court has fixed the case for framing charge against co-accused Gurupreet, who has been confined in [2025:RJ-JP:16168] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9167/2024] jail in State of Punjab in some other criminal case that is why he is not appearing before learned trial court for framing charges and that is why the trial has not been started and the statement of Seizure Officer could not be recorded. In these circumstances, this third bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner does not have any concern with the alleged recovery of contraband. He was simply a ‘khalasi’ on the vehicle from which, contraband has been allegedly recovered. The petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2023 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than two years. Trial is also going at snails pace as till date, charges have not been framed. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. He has also placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in which period of incarceration has been considered relevant for grant of bail:-

1. Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022

2. Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : Crimial Appeal No.668/2020

3. Tapan Das vs. UOI (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021

4. Ghanshyam Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019

5. Nadeem vs State of UP (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022

6. Suresh Kumar vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.16118/2022, decided on 04.01.2023) [2025:RJ-JP:16168] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9167/2024]

7. Govind vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.426/2023, decided on 17.02.2023) He submits that in all these cases, bail was granted only on the ground of period of incarceration. He also relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raju Ram vs State of Bihar: (2023) 1 Supreme 670 wherein it has been held that on the basis of period of incarceration, bail can be granted by relaxing the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and considering the riquor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record.

6. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. [2025:RJ-JP:16168] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9167/2024]

7. As per record, the petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2023 and thus, he has suffered incarceration of almost two years till date. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, charges have not been framed and thus, the fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial is also being violated. The Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to different accused persons by considering the period of incarceration of about two years or more.

8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; more particularly the fact that trial of the case will take considerable time and petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this third bail application.

9. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Billa Singh S/o Shri Kikar Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

10. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:16168] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9167/2024] police station.

11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

12. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

13. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN /59 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J