Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused Who Allegedly Open Fired On Police To Evade Arrest
Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act who allegedly open fired at the policemen at the time of arrest.It is alleged that during raid when commandos began to surround the accused, gunfire was exchanged, resulting in the death of the co-accused and injuries to the applicant. The police alleged recovery of...
Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act who allegedly open fired at the policemen at the time of arrest.
It is alleged that during raid when commandos began to surround the accused, gunfire was exchanged, resulting in the death of the co-accused and injuries to the applicant. The police alleged recovery of weapons and poppy straw from their vehicle.
The counsel for the applicant argued that the recovery of weapons and poppy straw was fabricated, emphasizing applicant's lack of possession of weapons during the incident. The counsel further questioned the police's use of force and highlighted the absence of any injuries among police personnel, suggesting excessive use of power. It was further submitted that the fact of recovering poppy straw from the applicant's vehicle was never mentioned in the FIR.
On the contrary, special public prosecutor submitted that the intention of the accused was definitely attempt to murder the police who survived merely because of the bulletproof jackets. It was further argued that the applicant was a habitual criminal with large number of pending criminal cases against him. Hence, given the gravity of the offence, the bail application should be rejected.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni acknowledged the fact that no casualties were suffered by any policemen during the incident whereas the co-accused died during the scuttle and the applicant suffered injuries. Also, the fact of recovering poppy straw that too in substantial quantity of 332 grams was not mentioned in the FIR even though the vehicle was inspected at the time of the incident.
Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had substantial grounds available to him for questioning the prosecution case and the bail application was granted.
Title: Koushala Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 156