Rajasthan High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (‘NDPS’) Act, the Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., noting that his wife was pregnant and was expected to deliver a child within a few days in absence of family to assist, granted temporary bail on humanitarian grounds for 60 days.
Noting the seriousness of the allegations against the accused and the gravity of the offence under the NDPS Act and the fact that there was sufficient prima facie material supporting the prosecution’s case, the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail to the accused.
The Court, however, noted that the power to grant bail, whether regular or temporary, forms an integral part of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction, guided by the overarching considerations of justice, equity, and necessity. The Court was also mindful of the humanitarian dimensions of criminal jurisprudence.
Referring to Rakesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2022) 5 SCC 533, and Dadu v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437, the Court noted that the courts while denying regular bail can grant temporary Bail for a limited period where compelling personal, familial, or humanitarian grounds are established.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the pregnancy of the wife and the lack of availability of family assistance, by themselves, were not sufficient to warrant regular bail. However, they did constitute a reasonable basis to invoke the Court’s discretion and permit the accused’s temporary release to discharge familial obligations or attend personal exigencies. The Court further noted that a balanced approach, one which upholds the legal sanctity of the custodial process while also accommodating legitimate personal concerns, was warranted. The objective of criminal justice was not merely punitive but reformative and humane.
The Court directed the accused to be released on temporary bail for 60 days. This release was conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.
[Bhawani Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1544/2025, decided on 18-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Vijay Raj Bishnoi
For Respondent: C.S. Ojha, PP