Narayan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Narayan Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 20, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758581

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758581
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.N. Mathur, J.
Decided On: Jul 20, 2004
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 2009 of 2004
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 37(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayan Lal

Advocate Manish Pitaliya, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate J.P.S. Choudhary, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 37(1)
Cases Referred: Union of India v. Mahboob Alam
Reported In: RLW2004(4)Raj2160; 2004(4)WLC658

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - unfortunately, the lenient view taken in last few years has defeated the laudable purpose of the n......than prima facie ground. it contemplates substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. the technical ground as to the non- compliance of the certain provisions of the n.d.p.s. act cannot be permitted to be addressed at the stage of bail. in the said case the apex court set aside the order of the high court granting bail. the accused was directed to surrender to custody.5. the apex court again in union of india v. mahboob alam held that the co-accused has been granted bail cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail pertaining to an offence under the n.d.p.s. act. in this case again the supreme court set aside the order of the high court granting bail and remanded the accused to custody. unfortunately, the lenient view taken in last few years has defeated the laudable purpose of the n.d.p.s. act, to make the society drug free. sincere effort is required to be made to minimize if not eradicated the drug menace.6. considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, i do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail. the bail application stands dismissed.

Full Judgment

N.N. Mathur, J.

1. The instant application has been filed by petitioner Narayan Lal under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. He is facing trial for offence under Section 8/18, 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that as no recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 19.6.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1907/2003, wherein in such circumstances the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He has also placed reliance on another order dated 20th January, 2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 348/2002. In the said case the bail was granted on the ground that the evidence of the co-accused recorded by the police was not admissible in evidence and there was no other evidence except of the co-accused. In another order dated 17.6.2003 rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1890/2003 the court found that the accused was sought to be impleaded on the basis of interrogation of the co-accused. The court accepting the contention of the counsel to the effect that the information given by the co-accused against the applicant accused was not admissible in evidence and hence it was found to be a fit case for bail. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on Bhinya Ram v. The State of Rajasthan (1), and Mangi Lal v. The State of Rajasthan (2).

3. I have carefully gone through all the orders referred to by the learned counsel. With utmost respect, the view taken by the learned Judge in the aforesaid cases runs counter to the various decisions of the Apex Court.

4. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Dilip Pralhad Namade (3), the Court considering the limitation provided under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act held that 'Reasonable grounds' means some thing more than prima facie ground. It contemplates substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The technical ground as to the non- compliance of the certain provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be permitted to be addressed at the stage of bail. In the said case the Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court granting bail. The accused was directed to surrender to custody.

5. The Apex Court again in Union of India v. Mahboob Alam held that the co-accused has been granted bail cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail pertaining to an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. In this case again the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court granting bail and remanded the accused to custody. Unfortunately, the lenient view taken in last few years has defeated the laudable purpose of the N.D.P.S. Act, to make the society drug free. Sincere effort is required to be made to minimize if not eradicated the drug menace.

6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail. The Bail Application stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2004 Same Parties Narayan Lal vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.N. Mathur, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Narc...

Criminal